Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ben Bova is getting depressing
130 views
Skip to first unread message
Lynn McGuire
Jun 7, 2012, 1:06:49 PM6/7/12
to
I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
religious theocracy and global warming has risen
the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
is Bova really getting down on life ?
Lynn
http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
religious theocracy and global warming has risen
the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
is Bova really getting down on life ?
Lynn
Michael Stemper
Jun 7, 2012, 1:28:47 PM6/7/12
to
In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>the oceans by over 100 feet.
Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>the oceans by over 100 feet.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Build a man a fire, and you warm him for a day. Set him on fire,
and you warm him for a lifetime.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jun 7, 2012, 1:21:05 PM6/7/12
to
theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody
and his cousin Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as
they say, nothing new under the sun; Bova has apparently decided
to combine two elements under one set of covers, which is the
only way any of us can do anything "original" really.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Bill Snyder
Jun 7, 2012, 1:42:03 PM6/7/12
to
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:28:47 +0000 (UTC),
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
Oh, sure, the maximum rise if it all melted is closer to 100
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
meters than 100 feet.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Jun 7, 2012, 1:44:05 PM6/7/12
to
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible?
I make no comment on the religious theocracy.
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible?
>Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Entertain your own doom with the sea level rise map!
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/
Cheers - Jaimie
--
To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong.
-- HL Mencken
Dorothy J Heydt
Jun 7, 2012, 1:43:21 PM6/7/12
to
In article <jqqoce$qb9$1...@dont-email.me>,
Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
Oh yes.
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
James Nicoll
Jun 7, 2012, 1:45:35 PM6/7/12
to
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
Nicking from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ (which is
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
quoting Williams and Hall (1993)):
Location Volume Potential sea-level
(km^3) rise (m)
East Antarctic Ice Sheet 26,039,200 64.80
West Antarctic Ice Sheet 3,262,000 8.06
Antarctic Peninsula 227,100 0.46
Greenland 2,620,000 6.55
All other ice caps, ice
fields and valley glaciers 180,000 0.45
Total 32,328,300 80.32
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
James Nicoll
Jun 7, 2012, 1:47:00 PM6/7/12
to
I thought you followed his Grand Tour books. Both the theocracy and the
wide spread flooding due to sea level rise have been part of that setting
back to THE PRECIPICE (2001).
Scott Fluhrer
Jun 7, 2012, 1:51:50 PM6/7/12
to
"Michael Stemper" <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in message
news:jqqoce$qb9$1...@dont-email.me...
> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
> Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
They do, specifically, Antartica does; if all the ice on Antartica melted,
> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
> Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
that would raise the ocean level by about 200 feet or so.
Now, whether it is plausible that half of the ice on Antartica melted, well,
I've seen less believable things in SF.
--
poncho
Quadibloc
Jun 7, 2012, 3:49:31 PM6/7/12
to
I found something else about the book much more implausible, but as
that is later in the book it would be inappropriate to post a spoiler
like that in this thread.
John Savard
that is later in the book it would be inappropriate to post a spoiler
like that in this thread.
John Savard
Lynn McGuire
Jun 7, 2012, 3:55:17 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 12:47 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>
> You only just noticed?
>
> I thought you followed his Grand Tour books. Both the theocracy and the
> wide spread flooding due to sea level rise have been part of that setting
> back to THE PRECIPICE (2001).
I do follow his Grand Tour books and had noticed.
> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>
> You only just noticed?
>
> I thought you followed his Grand Tour books. Both the theocracy and the
> wide spread flooding due to sea level rise have been part of that setting
> back to THE PRECIPICE (2001).
But this book is particularly depressing. He
essentially has the worst elements of the Catholic
church running the USA. I mean, the Department of
Homeland Security was contracted out to the Moral
Majority with total suspension of the Bill of
Rights.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Jun 7, 2012, 4:01:41 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>
> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody
> and his cousin Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as
> they say, nothing new under the sun; Bova has apparently decided
> to combine two elements under one set of covers, which is the
> only way any of us can do anything "original" really.
Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious
> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>
> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody
> and his cousin Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as
> they say, nothing new under the sun; Bova has apparently decided
> to combine two elements under one set of covers, which is the
> only way any of us can do anything "original" really.
theocracy. The book is actually somewhere between
Religious Dictatorship as you mentioned and a
Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
I forget which 16th ?? century philosopher it was who
said, "I read in the New Testament about the persecution
of the Church but never do I read about the Church
persecuting others". Very sobering thoughts about those
who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic Republic.
Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
BTW, I'll believe in global warming and massive sea
rises when I see them. After all, some of my
grandparents were from Missouri.
Lynn
Bill Snyder
Jun 7, 2012, 4:06:53 PM6/7/12
to
have any vat girls.
Scott Lurndal
Jun 7, 2012, 5:00:45 PM6/7/12
to
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>is Bova really getting down on life ?
>
>I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History,
So, Nehemiah Scudder was elected in 2012, per the Future History. Was
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>is Bova really getting down on life ?
>
>I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History,
RAH precient and predicting a Romney win :-)?
s
Scott Lurndal
Jun 7, 2012, 5:12:01 PM6/7/12
to
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
Sea level has risen over 120 meters since the last Ice age, leveling
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
off about 8000 years ago.
Note that floating sea ice (all of the Arctic and some of the Antarctic)
won't increase sea level at all if it melts. The Greenland glaciers and
the land-bound Antarctic ice can, but won't be melting any time soon.
Latest research attributes just under half (40%) of the recent sea level rise
(in the last 60 years) to groundwater depletion, some of the rest is due to
thermal expansion and the small remainder is due to glacial melting and
isostatic rebound.
Global sea ice has remained relatively constant globally (more in antartica and
less in arctic) since 1979 (which is when records begin): +/- 2 million sq. km.
(or about 10%).
Recent research shows significant melting in Greenland in the 30's, recovery through
the 70's and some melting since.
scott
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 5:18:21 PM6/7/12
to
I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've never
met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
--
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins!
*
--------
*
Greg Goss
Jun 7, 2012, 5:25:29 PM6/7/12
to
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
The northern icecap is floating. Melt floating ice, and the water
>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
level doesn't change. So the big sources are antarctica and
greenland.
There's also the expansion of the water when it's warmed. Some have
claimed that ocean expansion will count for more sea level rise than
the melted ice.
But I'm not sure if either one can provide a hundred feet of rise.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jun 7, 2012, 5:51:32 PM6/7/12
to
Dorothy J Heydt
Jun 7, 2012, 5:53:00 PM6/7/12
to
In article <BuCdnf-0uqICh0zS...@giganews.com>,
Well, there are a fair few who want a theocracy. "Republic"
strictly speaking (from Latin, _respublica_, meaning "the public
thing") just means "state" or "government". Adjectives can modify
it some.
strictly speaking (from Latin, _respublica_, meaning "the public
thing") just means "state" or "government". Adjectives can modify
it some.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 7, 2012, 6:04:41 PM6/7/12
to
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote in
news:jqqoce$qb9$1...@dont-email.me:
> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
> <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/07653481
>> 52/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
> Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much
> water?
>
Antartica does. IIRC, the ice pack on Antartica is, on average, a
mile thick, with an average temperature of -70 F, requiring a
temperature rise of about 100 F to melt it. If that happens, I
suspect sea levels won't be our biggest problem.
Bova is absolutely obsessed with theocracies, though.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:jqqoce$qb9$1...@dont-email.me:
> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
> <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/07653481
>> 52/
>>starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
> Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much
> water?
>
mile thick, with an average temperature of -70 F, requiring a
temperature rise of about 100 F to melt it. If that happens, I
suspect sea levels won't be our biggest problem.
Bova is absolutely obsessed with theocracies, though.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
Jun 7, 2012, 6:08:12 PM6/7/12
to
worldwide proof with accurate instrumentation. We
do not have any temperatures good past the decimal
point and I will argue that any measured temperature
is plus or minus 2 F.
I live 72 feet above sea level. I have a 14 foot
levee between my home and a major river here in
Texas. If I was worried, I would move. This year.
I've been flooded before in Dallas, flooding is very,
very dangerous and nothing you want to experence.
Lynn
Cryptoengineer
Jun 7, 2012, 5:33:26 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
wrote:
They're around. Quite aside from the Muslim wingnuts who want to
establish a 'Caliphate', there are equally wingnutty Christians. Try
googling 'New Apostolic Reformation', 'Christian Reconstructionism',
and 'Dominionism'. Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have been
linked to the movement, though I have no idea how strongly they hold
such beliefs.
pt
wrote:
> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <jqqn3f$k3...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
establish a 'Caliphate', there are equally wingnutty Christians. Try
googling 'New Apostolic Reformation', 'Christian Reconstructionism',
and 'Dominionism'. Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have been
linked to the movement, though I have no idea how strongly they hold
such beliefs.
pt
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 6:43:41 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 4:53 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<BuCdnf-0uqICh0zS...@giganews.com>,
Who wants a theocracy and give me hard evidence (stand up in court
evidence) that they want it?
> In article<BuCdnf-0uqICh0zS...@giganews.com>,
evidence) that they want it?
Eric T. Duckman
Jun 7, 2012, 6:45:06 PM6/7/12
to
--
"...Amusing, yet not without a certain understated omniscience"
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 6:46:23 PM6/7/12
to
from Liberals nothing from their own writings.
Would you want to stand trial with the "level of evidence" the same as
the evidence that they want a theocracy?
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 6:51:39 PM6/7/12
to
theocracy" or if its this guy's paranoia at work.
After all, I heard Liberals claim that Conservatives want "Jim Crow
Laws" back in force and my experience is that no Conservatives want that.
Lynn McGuire
Jun 7, 2012, 6:57:00 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 5:45 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
democracy. The USA is a Republic, not a democracy.
Democracy means one man, one vote on everything. Here
in the USA, we elect people (Representatives) to vote
for us.
Lynn
Eric T. Duckman
Jun 7, 2012, 6:57:21 PM6/7/12
to
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy
responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in
civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But
it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are
after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal
time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has
commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the
Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian
politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men,
families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the
Kingdom of Christ." From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles
for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press
Eric T. Duckman
Jun 7, 2012, 7:09:06 PM6/7/12
to
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 7:29:29 PM6/7/12
to
that Religious People want a theocracy so I don't see a call for a
theocracy.
Second, there have been too many cases of "cut and paste" quotes. IE
where somebody takes the words of another person and combines them in
such a way to make the other person's words mean something that the
person didn't intend.
Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s? Americans in the past
took pride in their Religious Beliefs. Why are things so different now?
Why should we fear religious people now but didn't in the past?
Greg Goss
Jun 7, 2012, 7:52:41 PM6/7/12
to
Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 6/7/2012 5:57 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History
>On 6/7/2012 5:57 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History
>>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
>with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
>talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s? Americans in the past
>took pride in their Religious Beliefs. Why are things so different now?
> Why should we fear religious people now but didn't in the past?
We were talking about Heinlein. The Heinlein novel was written in
>with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
>talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s? Americans in the past
>took pride in their Religious Beliefs. Why are things so different now?
> Why should we fear religious people now but didn't in the past?
1940.
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 8:12:34 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 6:52 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> Drak Bibliophile<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2012 5:57 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>
>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>>> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History
>
>>>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>
>> Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
>> with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
>> talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s? Americans in the past
>> took pride in their Religious Beliefs. Why are things so different now?
>> Why should we fear religious people now but didn't in the past?
>
> We were talking about Heinlein. The Heinlein novel was written in
> 1940.
So?
> Drak Bibliophile<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2012 5:57 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>
>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>>> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History
>
>>>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>
>> Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
>> with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
>> talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s? Americans in the past
>> took pride in their Religious Beliefs. Why are things so different now?
>> Why should we fear religious people now but didn't in the past?
>
> We were talking about Heinlein. The Heinlein novel was written in
> 1940.
How many people in 1940 seriously talked about "fears of a theocracy"?
In any case, Heinlein was no prophet and neither is Ben Bova.
Do you really believe that Christians would support a theocracy?
Cryptoengineer
Jun 7, 2012, 8:23:02 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 6:46 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
I don't need to. This is a usenet newsgroup, not court of law.
pt
pt
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 8:34:49 PM6/7/12
to
Robert Bannister
Jun 7, 2012, 9:02:41 PM6/7/12
to
with, they would deny that the rest of the group were Christian at all.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Jun 7, 2012, 9:05:19 PM6/7/12
to
On 8/06/12 6:08 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/7/2012 4:51 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> BTW, I'll believe in global warming and massive sea
>>> rises when I see them. After all, some of my
>>> grandparents were from Missouri.
>>
>> You do know the Northwest Passage is now open?
>
> So ? That is localized weather phenomena. Give me
> worldwide proof with accurate instrumentation. We
> do not have any temperatures good past the decimal
> point and I will argue that any measured temperature
> is plus or minus 2 F.
You do realise that during the Ice Ages the whole world was not covered
> On 6/7/2012 4:51 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> BTW, I'll believe in global warming and massive sea
>>> rises when I see them. After all, some of my
>>> grandparents were from Missouri.
>>
>> You do know the Northwest Passage is now open?
>
> So ? That is localized weather phenomena. Give me
> worldwide proof with accurate instrumentation. We
> do not have any temperatures good past the decimal
> point and I will argue that any measured temperature
> is plus or minus 2 F.
in ice? It's always a localised phenomenon, but world-wide the ocean
temperatures have risen and they don't need to rise much to generate a
climate change.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Jun 7, 2012, 9:06:56 PM6/7/12
to
On 8/06/12 1:28 AM, Michael Stemper wrote:
the oceans to rise because most of it is floating. Watch out if
Antarctica continues to melt.
--
Robert Bannister
> In article<jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> writes:
>
>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
>
>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> the oceans by over 100 feet.
>
> Is that even possible? Do the polar ice caps contain that much water?
>
Polar ice caps, or at least the northern ice cap melting would not cause
>
the oceans to rise because most of it is floating. Watch out if
Antarctica continues to melt.
--
Robert Bannister
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 9:25:48 PM6/7/12
to
Still, IMO you'd be correct in thinking that even those who would want a
theocracy couldn't agree on the nature of the beliefs mandated by the
theocracy.
Even something as "simple" as an established church would be something
we couldn't agree on.
Cryptoengineer
Jun 7, 2012, 8:40:21 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 8:34 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
Can you prove me wrong? At the level of evidence you demand of others?
pt
pt
Cryptoengineer
Jun 7, 2012, 9:35:21 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 8:34 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
I don't feel the need to establish legal-strength evidence before
expressing an opinion. When shown to be wrong, I admit it, and
apologize.
Since you irritated me, I went out to find better evidence that such
Christian wingnuttery existed.
It didn't take long.
Try reading this:
http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/ChristianInauguralAddress.htm
Its scary.
pt
expressing an opinion. When shown to be wrong, I admit it, and
apologize.
Since you irritated me, I went out to find better evidence that such
Christian wingnuttery existed.
It didn't take long.
Try reading this:
http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/ChristianInauguralAddress.htm
Its scary.
pt
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 7, 2012, 9:59:34 PM6/7/12
to
According to this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christian_Identity it's
just racist nonsense trying to cloak itself in Christianity.
To imply that Christians as a group would "buy into" this nonsense is
insulting.
To imply that Christians as a group would accept a theocracy is
nonsense. Just the divisions within Christianity should tell you that a
theocracy would be nearly impossible to establish in the US.
To use these sort of idiots to claim that Christians would like a
theocracy is the same as to say that the Soviet Union was a "model
atheist state".
David DeLaney
Jun 7, 2012, 10:53:02 PM6/7/12
to
Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 6/7/2012 8:02 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> I doubt any large group of Christians could agree on anything. To start
>> with, they would deny that the rest of the group were Christian at all.
>
>We're not that bad. [Wink]
Yes, you are. You -really really- are.
>On 6/7/2012 8:02 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> I doubt any large group of Christians could agree on anything. To start
>> with, they would deny that the rest of the group were Christian at all.
>
>We're not that bad. [Wink]
Plus which, you're doing your "I can express opinions all over the place
without any shred of proof, source quoting, or even a hint of where I got
them or how I developed them, but let anyone else try to tell me something I
don't want to hear and I'll demand solid unimpeachable legal crystalline
notarized statements from five different sources, a teacher, and two members
of Congress before I even begin to stop arguing about it" schtick again, and
it's boring.
Your opinions aren't facts. Other people opinions aren't whimsies, drunken
fantasies, paranoic insinuations about your masculinity, or drug-induced
hallucinations. Use some symmetrical treatment, okay? Makes you look a lot
less alien.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Cryptoengineer
Jun 7, 2012, 10:59:45 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 9:59 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
> According to this:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christian_Identityit's
Christian wingnuts who like these ideas. Now you're claiming either
that 'Christians as a group (ie all)' wouldn't buy into it, which
isn't at all what I claimed, or that not true Christian would do so.
Try looking up 'No True Scotsman' in Wikipedia.
I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
pt
> just racist nonsense trying to cloak itself in Christianity.
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would "buy into" this nonsense is
> insulting.
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would accept a theocracy is
> nonsense. Just the divisions within Christianity should tell you that a
> theocracy would be nearly impossible to establish in the US.
>
> To use these sort of idiots to claim that Christians would like a
> theocracy is the same as to say that the Soviet Union was a "model
> atheist state".
Wow, talk about moving the goal posts. I said that there were
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would "buy into" this nonsense is
> insulting.
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would accept a theocracy is
> nonsense. Just the divisions within Christianity should tell you that a
> theocracy would be nearly impossible to establish in the US.
>
> To use these sort of idiots to claim that Christians would like a
> theocracy is the same as to say that the Soviet Union was a "model
> atheist state".
Christian wingnuts who like these ideas. Now you're claiming either
that 'Christians as a group (ie all)' wouldn't buy into it, which
isn't at all what I claimed, or that not true Christian would do so.
Try looking up 'No True Scotsman' in Wikipedia.
I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
pt
Quadibloc
Jun 7, 2012, 11:08:39 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 2:01 pm, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious
> theocracy. The book is actually somewhere between
> Religious Dictatorship as you mentioned and a
> Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
I'll have to admit there was a time when I reacted to Dune and the
> Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious
> theocracy. The book is actually somewhere between
> Religious Dictatorship as you mentioned and a
> Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
Instrumentality series negatively for a similar reason - why were so
many science-fiction stories set in what I felt was a highly unlikely
scenario, where freedom and democracy have perished, I wondered.
But I didn't find "The Return" to be particularly depressing. I did
think there was a howler in it, but it wasn't an overestimate of
flooding due to global warming.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Jun 7, 2012, 11:16:34 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've never
> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
You've never met anyone who _admits_ to it. But liberals, with various
degrees of justification, can point even to opponents of abortion and
gay marriage as people who want to undermine the First Amendment, and
impose religiously-based standards of conduct on everyone.
In the case of abortion, one can rightly say this is false, since
there religion is simply motivating people to take a stand against age-
based discrimination; it would be like saying the fight against
slavery, carried on by many people of religious faith, was theocratic.
But it wasn't that long ago, for example, that the nation's divorce
laws - and laws against cohabitation - indeed were imposing religious-
based standards of conduct on everyone.
Individual states, before the colonies united, did have established
churches. The Amish aren't the only example of religiously-run
communities in U.S. history, as well.
There are several cases of local sheriffs acting outside their
authority to do things like obstructing roads leading to nudist camps,
or shutting down performances by rock singers.
A recent candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination openly
spoke of abolishing the First Amendment.
So, to say there is _no_ danger in this direction, even though this
goal is not espoused openly outside of a very small and extreme
lunatic fringe, exaggerates matters.
John Savard
wrote:
> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've never
> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
degrees of justification, can point even to opponents of abortion and
gay marriage as people who want to undermine the First Amendment, and
impose religiously-based standards of conduct on everyone.
In the case of abortion, one can rightly say this is false, since
there religion is simply motivating people to take a stand against age-
based discrimination; it would be like saying the fight against
slavery, carried on by many people of religious faith, was theocratic.
But it wasn't that long ago, for example, that the nation's divorce
laws - and laws against cohabitation - indeed were imposing religious-
based standards of conduct on everyone.
Individual states, before the colonies united, did have established
churches. The Amish aren't the only example of religiously-run
communities in U.S. history, as well.
There are several cases of local sheriffs acting outside their
authority to do things like obstructing roads leading to nudist camps,
or shutting down performances by rock singers.
A recent candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination openly
spoke of abolishing the First Amendment.
So, to say there is _no_ danger in this direction, even though this
goal is not espoused openly outside of a very small and extreme
lunatic fringe, exaggerates matters.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Jun 7, 2012, 11:18:09 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 4:46 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I've heard of such groups but I've only heard that they want a theocracy
> from Liberals nothing from their own writings.
All right, what do their writings say?
John Savard
wrote:
> I've heard of such groups but I've only heard that they want a theocracy
> from Liberals nothing from their own writings.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Jun 7, 2012, 11:05:13 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 7, 2:06 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>
> <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >I found something else about the book much more implausible, but as
> >that is later in the book it would be inappropriate to post a spoiler
> >like that in this thread.
>
> It's not really a spoiler, Quaddy, lots and lots of books don't
> have any vat girls.
(spoiler space)
Incidentally, I will note that I wasn't bothered by the water
calculation, nor did I find the book depressing.
As
to
your
comment,
no
I
really
didn't
mean
that
(/spoiler space)
I was referring to the rather amazing things the returned being was
able to do by means of cloning.
Identical twins are two distinct individuals, with no access to one
another's memories.
Hence, cloning a deceased individual does not, and can not, amount
to...
*resurrecting* that individual from the dead.
That is what I found to be a preposterous premise in that book.
John Savard
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>
> <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >I found something else about the book much more implausible, but as
> >that is later in the book it would be inappropriate to post a spoiler
> >like that in this thread.
>
> It's not really a spoiler, Quaddy, lots and lots of books don't
> have any vat girls.
(spoiler space)
Incidentally, I will note that I wasn't bothered by the water
calculation, nor did I find the book depressing.
As
to
your
comment,
no
I
really
didn't
mean
that
(/spoiler space)
I was referring to the rather amazing things the returned being was
able to do by means of cloning.
Identical twins are two distinct individuals, with no access to one
another's memories.
Hence, cloning a deceased individual does not, and can not, amount
to...
*resurrecting* that individual from the dead.
That is what I found to be a preposterous premise in that book.
John Savard
Brian M. Scott
Jun 8, 2012, 5:39:14 AM6/8/12
to
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:43:41 -0500, Drak Bibliophile
<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:YOGdnfAkqJYCs0zS...@giganews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 6/7/2012 4:53 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article<BuCdnf-0uqICh0zS...@giganews.com>,
>> Drak Bibliophile<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a
>>> Theocratic Republic?
>>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them
>>> but I've never met anybody who wants a Theocratic
>>> Republic.
Because you're wilfully blind. Oh, and 'liberal' and
'secularist' aren't capitalized, unless you're talking about
the English Liberal Party or the tiny U.S. one (in New York,
I think).
>> Well, there are a fair few who want a theocracy.
>> "Republic" strictly speaking (from Latin, _respublica_,
>> meaning "the public thing") just means "state" or
>> "government". Adjectives can modify it some.
> Who wants a theocracy and give me hard evidence (stand up
> in court evidence) that they want it?
It's a waste of effort to try: your mind's made up. Any
evidence, however good, will be met with disbelief,
dismissal of the source without consideration of the
evidence, an idiosyncratic reading that no reasonable person
would accept, or, if all fails, a massive shift of the
goalposts (as just now in your exchange with
Cryptoengineer).
<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:YOGdnfAkqJYCs0zS...@giganews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 6/7/2012 4:53 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article<BuCdnf-0uqICh0zS...@giganews.com>,
>> Drak Bibliophile<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a
>>> Theocratic Republic?
>>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them
>>> but I've never met anybody who wants a Theocratic
>>> Republic.
'secularist' aren't capitalized, unless you're talking about
the English Liberal Party or the tiny U.S. one (in New York,
I think).
>> Well, there are a fair few who want a theocracy.
>> "Republic" strictly speaking (from Latin, _respublica_,
>> meaning "the public thing") just means "state" or
>> "government". Adjectives can modify it some.
> Who wants a theocracy and give me hard evidence (stand up
> in court evidence) that they want it?
evidence, however good, will be met with disbelief,
dismissal of the source without consideration of the
evidence, an idiosyncratic reading that no reasonable person
would accept, or, if all fails, a massive shift of the
goalposts (as just now in your exchange with
Cryptoengineer).
Brian M. Scott
Jun 8, 2012, 5:40:42 AM6/8/12
to
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 20:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:7ce12dc0-a7ba-4a6a...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them
>> but I've never met anybody who wants a Theocratic
>> Republic.
> You've never met anyone who _admits_ to it. But liberals,
> with various degrees of justification, can point even to
> opponents of abortion and gay marriage as people who want
> to undermine the First Amendment, and impose
> religiously-based standards of conduct on everyone.
> In the case of abortion, one can rightly say this is
> false, since there religion is simply motivating people
> to take a stand against age- based discrimination;
Bullshit.
[...]
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:7ce12dc0-a7ba-4a6a...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Jun 7, 3:18 pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them
>> but I've never met anybody who wants a Theocratic
>> Republic.
> You've never met anyone who _admits_ to it. But liberals,
> with various degrees of justification, can point even to
> opponents of abortion and gay marriage as people who want
> to undermine the First Amendment, and impose
> religiously-based standards of conduct on everyone.
> In the case of abortion, one can rightly say this is
> false, since there religion is simply motivating people
> to take a stand against age- based discrimination;
[...]
Michael Stemper
Jun 8, 2012, 8:16:22 AM6/8/12
to
In article <1E8Ar.95248$xi1....@news.usenetserver.com>, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>RAH precient and predicting a Romney win :-)?
Since the Mormons were opposed to Scudder, I'd guess not.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>>>I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>>>set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>>the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>>is Bova really getting down on life ?
>>
>>I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History,
>
>So, Nehemiah Scudder was elected in 2012, per the Future History. Was
>>>religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>>the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>>is Bova really getting down on life ?
>>
>>I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History,
>
>RAH precient and predicting a Romney win :-)?
Since the Mormons were opposed to Scudder, I'd guess not.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
Michael Stemper
Jun 8, 2012, 8:21:01 AM6/8/12
to
In article <6095e5ed-b0cd-4e24...@p13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic Republic?
>>
attempts to turn the US into a theocracy. At least, the wrong kind:
<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/bachmann-first-presidential-candidate-to-sign-anti-sharia-pledge.html>
>On Jun 7, 5:18=A0pm, Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> > On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> >> In article <jqqn3f$k3...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com wrote:
>> >>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> >>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> >>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>> >>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>>
>> >> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>> >>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>> >>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>> >>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>> >>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>>
>> >> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>> >> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody
>> >> and his cousin Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as
>> >> they say, nothing new under the sun; Bova has apparently decided
>> >> to combine two elements under one set of covers, which is the
>> >> only way any of us can do anything "original" really.
>>
>> >> and his cousin Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as
>> >> they say, nothing new under the sun; Bova has apparently decided
>> >> to combine two elements under one set of covers, which is the
>> >> only way any of us can do anything "original" really.
>>
>> > Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious
>> > theocracy. The book is actually somewhere between
>> > Religious Dictatorship as you mentioned and a
>> > Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
>>
>> > theocracy. The book is actually somewhere between
>> > Religious Dictatorship as you mentioned and a
>> > Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
>>
>> > I forget which 16th ?? century philosopher it was who
>> > said, "I read in the New Testament about the persecution
>> > of the Church but never do I read about the Church
>> > persecuting others". Very sobering thoughts about those
>> > who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic Republic.
>> > said, "I read in the New Testament about the persecution
>> > of the Church but never do I read about the Church
>> > persecuting others". Very sobering thoughts about those
>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic Republic?
>>
>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've never
>> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
>
>> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
>
>They're around. Quite aside from the Muslim wingnuts who want to
>establish a 'Caliphate', there are equally wingnutty Christians. Try
>googling 'New Apostolic Reformation', 'Christian Reconstructionism',
>and 'Dominionism'. Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have been
>linked to the movement,
Interestingly, late last year, Bachmann was running around *decrying* the
>establish a 'Caliphate', there are equally wingnutty Christians. Try
>googling 'New Apostolic Reformation', 'Christian Reconstructionism',
>and 'Dominionism'. Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have been
>linked to the movement,
attempts to turn the US into a theocracy. At least, the wrong kind:
<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/bachmann-first-presidential-candidate-to-sign-anti-sharia-pledge.html>
Michael Stemper
Jun 8, 2012, 8:39:17 AM6/8/12
to
In article <jqrbk3$p2b$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>On 6/7/2012 5:45 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:18:21 -0500, Drak Bibliophile wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> has the USA turned into a religious theocracy and global warming has
>>>>>> risen the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or is Bova really
>>>>>> getting down on life ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious theocracy"
>>>>> is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody and his cousin
>>>>> Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as they say, nothing new
>>>>> under the sun; Bova has apparently decided to combine two elements
>>>>> under one set of covers, which is the only way any of us can do
>>>>> anything "original" really.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious theocracy. The
>>>> book is actually somewhere between Religious Dictatorship as you
>>>> mentioned and a Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
>On 6/7/2012 5:45 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:18:21 -0500, Drak Bibliophile wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> has the USA turned into a religious theocracy and global warming has
>>>>>> risen the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or is Bova really
>>>>>> getting down on life ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious theocracy"
>>>>> is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody and his cousin
>>>>> Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as they say, nothing new
>>>>> under the sun; Bova has apparently decided to combine two elements
>>>>> under one set of covers, which is the only way any of us can do
>>>>> anything "original" really.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious theocracy. The
>>>> book is actually somewhere between Religious Dictatorship as you
>>>> mentioned and a Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
>>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic
>>> Republic?
>>>
>>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've never
>>> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
>>
>> http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm
>
>This guy lost his cred with me when called the USA a
>democracy.
Because of his loose terminology, you can ignore all of the stuff that
>>> Republic?
>>>
>>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've never
>>> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
>>
>> http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm
>
>This guy lost his cred with me when called the USA a
>democracy.
he's quoted from people calling for theocracy? Even though the same quotes
are available from multiple sources other than this page?
Whatever works for you.
Michael Stemper
Jun 8, 2012, 8:44:05 AM6/8/12
to
"World conquest", and "governments for the Kingdom of Christ", it doesn't
mean that anybody wants a theocracy. Got it.
>Second, there have been too many cases of "cut and paste" quotes. IE
>where somebody takes the words of another person and combines them in
>such a way to make the other person's words mean something that the
>person didn't intend.
>Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
>with the growth of people who openly hate religion.
when my faith was running one, and I don't think that it'd be any
better under a different faith. Certainly not for me.
David Johnston
Jun 8, 2012, 12:14:33 PM6/8/12
to
>
> Second, there have been too many cases of "cut and paste" quotes. IE
> where somebody takes the words of another person and combines them in
> such a way to make the other person's words mean something that the
> person didn't intend.
>
> Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
> with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
> talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s?
2100" in 1953.
Fritz Leiber wrote "Gather Darkness" in 1943.
But in the 1950s religion was fundamentally staying the hell out of
American politics. The Moral Majority hadn't yet come along to change
the rules.
James Nicoll
Jun 8, 2012, 12:35:26 PM6/8/12
to
In article <jqr0vb$nj7$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>
>> I thought you followed his Grand Tour books. Both the theocracy and the
>> wide spread flooding due to sea level rise have been part of that setting
>> back to THE PRECIPICE (2001).
>
>I do follow his Grand Tour books and had noticed.
>But this book is particularly depressing. He
>essentially has the worst elements of the Catholic
>church running the USA. I mean, the Department of
>Homeland Security was contracted out to the Moral
>Majority with total suspension of the Bill of
>Rights.
I'd just like to say at this point that while both
are not organizations I'd want to see in charge of
anything that affected me, the Moral Majority is
the Protestant organization I don't want to see
in charge of anything that affects me, whereas
the Catholics are, well, Catholic.
The general pattern for most Bova after, oh, let's
say 1975 (although it could be earlier) is either
some sort of 1970s-style soft-SF thriller like
The Multiple Man or something of the form 'Oh, No!
Problem X will DOOM US ALL! And the only solution
for Problem X is SPACE! AND LOTS OF IT!" Problem
X was lack of resources in the 1970s, then the
Eternal Empire of the Red Menace after Detente
fell apart and most recently climate change but
the solution is pretty much always SPACE! AND
LOTS OF IT!
I though it was amusing that because Power Play
involved a field he has been exposed to for decades,
he was too aware of the real world limitations to
just handwave some super science solution like he
did in the Grand Tour universe [1] and so the big
development is going from a lab demo model to
something you could power a town with if you were
desperate.
By the way, things get even worse in the Grand Tour
universe. One of the stories in Tales of the Grand
Tour makes it clear civilization collapsed, at least
on Earth. I could venure a reason why, although it's
a spoiler for The Return:
The Stones secretly put fertility limiters on all the human
females to prevent runaway population growth from continuing*.
This keeps them from having more kids than is needed to replace
them. In practice since some people will never have kids, this
means the human population will slowly decline to extinction.
What makes it really hilarious is that the Stones also encourage
people to head off to the stars without warning them they cannot
possibly ever increase their numbers, at least not without something
like a uterine replicator.
1: Well, two of them: the superduper fusion drive, which
for some reason is not used to deal with Earth's energy
issues, and what happens in the book you are reading.
2: Because as humane interrogation will show, the aged in
the SF community are no more capable of noticing what's
happening with birth rates than I am capable of peeing
molten gold. In their defence, willful ignorance seems to
be a core value for a certain sort of SF person.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
>On 6/7/2012 12:47 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>>
>> You only just noticed?
>> In article <jqqn3f$k37$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>>
>>
>> I thought you followed his Grand Tour books. Both the theocracy and the
>> wide spread flooding due to sea level rise have been part of that setting
>> back to THE PRECIPICE (2001).
>
>I do follow his Grand Tour books and had noticed.
>But this book is particularly depressing. He
>essentially has the worst elements of the Catholic
>church running the USA. I mean, the Department of
>Homeland Security was contracted out to the Moral
>Majority with total suspension of the Bill of
>Rights.
I'd just like to say at this point that while both
are not organizations I'd want to see in charge of
anything that affected me, the Moral Majority is
the Protestant organization I don't want to see
in charge of anything that affects me, whereas
the Catholics are, well, Catholic.
The general pattern for most Bova after, oh, let's
say 1975 (although it could be earlier) is either
some sort of 1970s-style soft-SF thriller like
The Multiple Man or something of the form 'Oh, No!
Problem X will DOOM US ALL! And the only solution
for Problem X is SPACE! AND LOTS OF IT!" Problem
X was lack of resources in the 1970s, then the
Eternal Empire of the Red Menace after Detente
fell apart and most recently climate change but
the solution is pretty much always SPACE! AND
LOTS OF IT!
I though it was amusing that because Power Play
involved a field he has been exposed to for decades,
he was too aware of the real world limitations to
just handwave some super science solution like he
did in the Grand Tour universe [1] and so the big
development is going from a lab demo model to
something you could power a town with if you were
desperate.
By the way, things get even worse in the Grand Tour
universe. One of the stories in Tales of the Grand
Tour makes it clear civilization collapsed, at least
on Earth. I could venure a reason why, although it's
a spoiler for The Return:
The Stones secretly put fertility limiters on all the human
females to prevent runaway population growth from continuing*.
This keeps them from having more kids than is needed to replace
them. In practice since some people will never have kids, this
means the human population will slowly decline to extinction.
What makes it really hilarious is that the Stones also encourage
people to head off to the stars without warning them they cannot
possibly ever increase their numbers, at least not without something
like a uterine replicator.
1: Well, two of them: the superduper fusion drive, which
for some reason is not used to deal with Earth's energy
issues, and what happens in the book you are reading.
2: Because as humane interrogation will show, the aged in
the SF community are no more capable of noticing what's
happening with birth rates than I am capable of peeing
molten gold. In their defence, willful ignorance seems to
be a core value for a certain sort of SF person.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Lynn McGuire
Jun 8, 2012, 12:42:16 PM6/8/12
to
believe in man made Global Warming however. The
Earth has cycles of warmth and cold. We are currently
in a warm cycle and I pray that it stays that way. We
can take more warm (in fact the evidence says that
the Earth was probably 4 to 6 F warmer about 1000
years ago). However, we cannot take much colder.
4 to 6 F colder on a global scale would be a total
disaster.
And even if there was man made global warming, what
should we do about it ? Getting the entire planet to
cut back on CO2 production is not going to happen.
And conversion to nuclear energy is not going to
happen anytime soon. The new TVA nuclear power plant
is currently scheduled to go online in 2015 and I
suspect that will be the last nuclear power plant
built in the USA for decades, maybe a century.
Lynn
Scott Lurndal
Jun 8, 2012, 1:21:12 PM6/8/12
to
Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>And even if there was man made global warming, what
>should we do about it ? Getting the entire planet to
>cut back on CO2 production is not going to happen.
>And conversion to nuclear energy is not going to
>happen anytime soon. The new TVA nuclear power plant
>is currently scheduled to go online in 2015 and I
>suspect that will be the last nuclear power plant
>built in the USA for decades, maybe a century.
>
There are two new reactors being built in South Carolina and two in Georgia.
>And even if there was man made global warming, what
>should we do about it ? Getting the entire planet to
>cut back on CO2 production is not going to happen.
>And conversion to nuclear energy is not going to
>happen anytime soon. The new TVA nuclear power plant
>is currently scheduled to go online in 2015 and I
>suspect that will be the last nuclear power plant
>built in the USA for decades, maybe a century.
>
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219277-regulators-approve-construction-of-second-new-nuclear-reactors-in-decades
As for the future, 9 billion people by 2050 is much more
worrisome than a couple of degrees of warming.
scott
Drak Bibliophile
Jun 8, 2012, 1:27:09 PM6/8/12
to
claims about others wanting a theocracy with a truck load of salt.
As for "changing the rules", religion started to become "evil in
politics" after the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal.
For that matter, when Thomas Jefferson was President there were church
services in the Capitol Building.
People know would scream bloody murder about that.
Lynn McGuire
Jun 8, 2012, 1:36:56 PM6/8/12
to
going to be built after the foundations (10,000+
truckloads of concrete) are poured.
None of Japan's 54 nuclear power plants are now
running. None.
BTW, Bova's _The_Return_ book has the global
population at 14 billion in 2098. The extraction
of ore and other items from the asteroid belt
forestalls the food and infrastructure crash.
Lynn
James Nicoll
Jun 8, 2012, 2:29:55 PM6/8/12
to
In article <jqtd7u$2cl$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>BTW, Bova's _The_Return_ book has the global
>population at 14 billion in 2098.
14 billion is higher than the high estimate for 2100
>BTW, Bova's _The_Return_ book has the global
>population at 14 billion in 2098.
the UN puts forth in this paper:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
and considerably higher than the medium case. UN population
projections have traditionally been too high. I stand second
to none in my advocacy of stringent population controls on
certain groups (like Ted Turner, whose family will continue
to breed like mice absent brutal state intervention). The general
human population does not at this time seem to be headed towards
the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova accepts as the norm.
>The extraction
>of ore and other items from the asteroid belt
>forestalls the food and infrastructure crash.
even after centuries of exploitation, is a pretty rich
source of most materials of interest to an industrial
civilization. While some technologies (like nanotech)
clearly are not something you want to run amok on the
homeworld, he has to crock things so the Earthians don't,
for example, apply the cheap fusion powered used in the
space drives to crack raw materials out of the Earth's
crust (or land fills).
Quadibloc
Jun 8, 2012, 4:05:02 PM6/8/12
to
On Jun 8, 10:42 am, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> Yes, I totally believe in Climate Change. I do not
> believe in man made Global Warming however. The
> Earth has cycles of warmth and cold.
That's true. But burning fossil fuels puts carbon dioxide in the
> Yes, I totally believe in Climate Change. I do not
> believe in man made Global Warming however. The
> Earth has cycles of warmth and cold.
atmosphere that wouldn't otherwise be there. The greenhouse effect is
very simple physics - the Earth isn't as hot as the Sun, so while the
Sun radiates energy to us as light and short-wave infrared, the Earth
radiates heat back to space as long-wave infrared.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, therefore, slow down the Earth
giving the heat it receives from the Sun back to space. We have to
radiate it all back to stay the same temperature, thus, this changes
the Earth's equilibrium temperature, how hot the Earth has to be to
radiate as much heat into space as it gets from the Sun.
We've already gotten enough warmer that the polar bear is threatened
by grizzly bear interbreeding. Enough carbon dioxide has been taken
out of the atmosphere by the oceans, delaying global warming, that the
Great Barrier Reef is threatened.
And in several parts of the world, permafrost is thawing, threatening
to release trapped methane from bogs that will promote a larger
greenhouse effect.
> We are currently
> in a warm cycle and I pray that it stays that way. We
> can take more warm (in fact the evidence says that
> the Earth was probably 4 to 6 F warmer about 1000
> years ago). However, we cannot take much colder.
> 4 to 6 F colder on a global scale would be a total
> disaster.
all that bad. Any change in weather patterns, though, could bring
droughts in some places and flooding in others. The main danger, long
before the ice caps of Greenland and the Antarctic melt - which could
happen eventually, and which is the disaster scenario getting the most
attention - is that many tropical areas will become too hot to grow
the crops that the people there know how to grow.
In today's world, national borders, although not inviolable, are
obstacles to migration. Massive famines in tropical countries are a
likely consequence of even modest climate change.
> And even if there was man made global warming, what
> should we do about it ? Getting the entire planet to
> cut back on CO2 production is not going to happen.
like something that is "not going to happen".
> And conversion to nuclear energy is not going to
> happen anytime soon. The new TVA nuclear power plant
> is currently scheduled to go online in 2015 and I
> suspect that will be the last nuclear power plant
> built in the USA for decades, maybe a century.
mean global disaster, and alternative C avoids it, but is objected to
by some people because of misinformation and hysteria, what do you do?
You choose alternative C.
All that's needed is for both the Democratic and Republican parties to
support legislation that streamlines the approval process for nuclear
power plants - by however much is necessary. For example, they could
all be owned and operated by the Department of Defense, and thus be
fully exempt from all state and local regulations whatever.
Then start building them. Everywhere fossil fuels are used now to
produce electricity.
Also, a program of low-interest long-term loans to finance people
converting their houses to use electricity rather than gas, oil, or
coal for heat.
Also, cities replace their diesel buses used for public transit with
trolley buses which use electrical power, generated by nuclear power
or hydroelectricity.
And gas rationing, so that people may still use their cars to go on
vacations, but everyone commutes to work by public transit - which, as
noted above, all runs off electricity, without any fossil fuel use.
Sure, people will gripe, but it is not impossible to cut CO2 emissions
significantly without sending us back to the dark ages. What would be
much more difficult, and I hope we can avoid it, would be requiring
people to cut down on meat consumption (methane from animals) and
running tractors and combines without fossil fuels.
Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
Crossing the oceans, though, whether by 'plane or ship, requires
fossil fuels - oh, wait a moment. Reactors have been used to power
both submarines and aircraft carriers, so, assuming that political
obstacles prevent people going from New York to London by taking a
train across the Bering Strait Bridge and then through the Channel
Tunnel (they _have_ that one, now), we _do_ have a means of
intercontinental transport without fossil fuels.
The passenger ships would just be run by the military - thus providing
the security the lack of which prevents us from driving around in the
equivalent of the Ford Nucleon.
If New Zealand still objects, I suppose people can take a nuclear
cruise ship to Sydney and then go by *sail* from Australia to New
Zealand.
John Savard
Lynn McGuire
Jun 8, 2012, 4:16:29 PM6/8/12
to
none unless Florida has three foot waves crossing it
from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico just south of
Jacksonville.
BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
reducing those.
I'm looking out my office window right now at our 98%
cloud cover and hoping for an inch or two of rain
tonight. Yup, we'll be reducing our greenhouse gases
tonight !
Lynn
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jun 8, 2012, 4:32:34 PM6/8/12
to
On 6/8/12 4:05 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> All that's needed is for both the Democratic and Republican parties to
> support legislation
And we're back to sheer fantasy again.
> All that's needed is for both the Democratic and Republican parties to
> support legislation
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Jun 8, 2012, 4:31:04 PM6/8/12
to
In message <jqtmj3$196$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
writes
It's not as difficult as you think. If you reduce the amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere the amount of water vapour will also reduce. (Technically
speaking water vapour is a feedback, rather than a forcing - take away
the forcing and the feedback also goes away.)
You might also note that we don't want to reduce the greenhouse effect
to zero, so we don't have to eliminate all greenhouse gases.
>
>I'm looking out my office window right now at our 98%
>cloud cover and hoping for an inch or two of rain
>tonight. Yup, we'll be reducing our greenhouse gases
>tonight !
>
>Lynn
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
writes
the atmosphere the amount of water vapour will also reduce. (Technically
speaking water vapour is a feedback, rather than a forcing - take away
the forcing and the feedback also goes away.)
You might also note that we don't want to reduce the greenhouse effect
to zero, so we don't have to eliminate all greenhouse gases.
>
>I'm looking out my office window right now at our 98%
>cloud cover and hoping for an inch or two of rain
>tonight. Yup, we'll be reducing our greenhouse gases
>tonight !
>
>Lynn
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jun 8, 2012, 4:38:14 PM6/8/12
to
On 6/8/12 4:16 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
> is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
> reducing those.
It's #1 because there's so much of it.
> BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
> is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
> reducing those.
However, the others are much more powerful and have a vastly
disproportionate effect.
Moreover, the water vapor concentration is normal for a mostly
ocean-covered world. This concentration has stayed (globally) pretty
much constant, and simple physics dictates it will always be dominated
by the average temperature over the water regions.
Adding more methane or CO2 is a *CHANGE* to the system -- and one that,
due to the butterfly/chaos effects, is hard to quantify, but is
undoubtedly THERE.
Think of the weather/ecosystem as an immensely heavy, complex object of
great extent, balanced perfectly on a single pin-sized point over a deep
chasm.
Putting more CO2 into the system than would normally be there is like
adding weight to one side of that balanced object. Maybe the object will
shift slightly and find a new equilibrium that isn't terribly different
from the one it had before... Or maybe the whole thing will tip and come
crashing down.
When you're STANDING on that balanced object, it behooves you to try
NOT to unbalance it.
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 8, 2012, 4:41:56 PM6/8/12
to
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> 2: Because as humane interrogation will show, the aged in
> the SF community are no more capable of noticing what's
> happening with birth rates than I am capable of peeing
> molten gold. In their defence, willful ignorance seems to
> be a core value for a certain sort of SF person.
Yeah, we're not ashamed of it, so no enhanced techniques are needed to
> 2: Because as humane interrogation will show, the aged in
> the SF community are no more capable of noticing what's
> happening with birth rates than I am capable of peeing
> molten gold. In their defence, willful ignorance seems to
> be a core value for a certain sort of SF person.
get it on the record.
I agree the numbers are highly suggestive at this point; across
cultures, a lot of countries have shown that "development" broadly,
especially if it includes empowerment of women, seems to lead to birth
rates being reduced to a level that will NOT lead directly and
immediately to malthusian catastrophe.
I do find your treating it as dogma (I really don't think there's
anywhere near enough science yet) that this *must* happen, is
unavoidable, can't be reversed, doesn't change with cultures (I did say
the evidence so far is somewhat cross-cultural), and only an idiot could
disagree, to be a religious position somewhat in advance of the facts.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Lynn McGuire
Jun 8, 2012, 4:53:25 PM6/8/12
to
have read all the Grand Tour books. What book
is it pray tell ?
Thanks,
Lynn
Quadibloc
Jun 8, 2012, 4:20:03 PM6/8/12
to
On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> The general
> human population does not at this time seem to be headed towards
> the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova accepts as the norm.
I side with Ben Bova on this.
> The general
> human population does not at this time seem to be headed towards
> the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova accepts as the norm.
I believe that the norm is 2% per annum population growth in developed
countries - much lower than in the Third World, but still positive and
exponential. Even 0.01% exponential population growth will lead to
disaster, it just takes longer.
The reason that we have such low population growth rates in the
developed world right now is that we have had severe unemployment
conditions since the late 1960s, almost without letup, the 1980s mini-
boom notwithstanding.
The next generation will be composed of the children of those who
still had kids _despite_ not being able to afford a house in the
suburbs - thus, over-represented among them will be people who go to
church regularly and who didn't go to college. And so the three or
more child family will be the norm in the next generation. Current low
birth rates, therefore, are just a temporary reflection of the
elimination of the picky people from the population who refuse to
breed under less-than-ideal conditions.
I view this as a terrible disaster. It will have bad results for the
political process. It will have bad results for the continued advance
of science and technology. Hence, when rapid population growth
resumes, we will have largely lost the ability to *cope with it* by
making further discoveries of ways to improve agriculture and energy
production.
Of course, in any case, while we should be aware of Norman Borlaug's
contribution, some of the people who have called attention to it have
done so with the intent of getting people to think that we can, with
just a little encouragement, have a *second* green revolution, and a
*third* green revolution, when we need them, and there don't need to
ever be any more famines, and only nasty evil socialists want to
convince you that we need population control.
If scientific discoveries came whenever we wanted them, why don't we
have a cure for AIDS? Food production, unlike, say, microprocessor
production, is a *mature technology*. We should not rely on amazing
new discoveries that will produce spectacular improvements in crop
yields. We should gratefully accept what we can get - and resist
hysterical opposition to genetically modified organisms - but we
should *not* ever let ourselves get in a position where we're
depending on future discoveries to save us.
John Savard
Scott Lurndal
Jun 8, 2012, 5:13:25 PM6/8/12
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>On 6/8/12 4:16 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
>> is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
>> reducing those.
>
> It's #1 because there's so much of it.
>
> However, the others are much more powerful and have a vastly
>disproportionate effect.
>
> Moreover, the water vapor concentration is normal for a mostly
>ocean-covered world. This concentration has stayed (globally) pretty
>much constant, and simple physics dictates it will always be dominated
>by the average temperature over the water regions.
>
> Adding more methane or CO2 is a *CHANGE* to the system -- and one that,
>due to the butterfly/chaos effects, is hard to quantify, but is
>undoubtedly THERE.
The physics says that a doubling in the fraction of carbon dioxide
>On 6/8/12 4:16 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
>> is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
>> reducing those.
>
> It's #1 because there's so much of it.
>
> However, the others are much more powerful and have a vastly
>disproportionate effect.
>
> Moreover, the water vapor concentration is normal for a mostly
>ocean-covered world. This concentration has stayed (globally) pretty
>much constant, and simple physics dictates it will always be dominated
>by the average temperature over the water regions.
>
> Adding more methane or CO2 is a *CHANGE* to the system -- and one that,
>due to the butterfly/chaos effects, is hard to quantify, but is
>undoubtedly THERE.
in the atmosphere leads to about a 1C degree change in the global
average temperature (however one may measure that). We're still
quite some distance away from that point. (we're approaching 400ppm,
which while doubling the permian 210ppm, has a ways to go before
doubling the pre-industrial 280ppm).
So, circa 1 degree C isn't too significant. That's one of the natural
forcings leading to a change in global average temperature, along
with water vapor, methane, albedo changes (e.g. clouds, ice cover, et. al.),
land-use changes (viz. urban heat island, deforestation, agriculture)
and total solar insolation.
Most of the global circulation climate models (GCM) code in a feedback
factor, wherein the change in co2 fraction leads to changes in the other
forcing factors (e.g. the assumption is that water vapor fraction in
the atmosphere will increase in a warmer world, leading to additional
warming).
However, it is not clear that these assumptions are always positive
feedbacks - for example, the additional water vapor may lead to additional
cloud cover (albedo increase) which may be (and some research seems to
show is) a negative feedback. Weather (pun intended) this is offset by the reduction
in Arctic sea ice (another albedo effect and a sea surface temperature
driver) is unclear.
The models don't handle clouds well yet.
>
> Think of the weather/ecosystem as an immensely heavy, complex object of
>great extent, balanced perfectly on a single pin-sized point over a deep
>chasm.
to prediction.
> When you're STANDING on that balanced object, it behooves you to try
>NOT to unbalance it.
the 70's was, in part, due to aerosols from burning coal, and that the general
cleanup in the 70's and 80's of power plant emissions (particularly sulfates
in the acid rain cleanups) has contributed to the current (less than 1C)
temperature rise since the prior high temperature peak in the 1930's.
However, getting back to sea-level rise, the heat required to melt the
antarctic ice cap, greenland or the various glaciers leading to substantial
rise in sea level is considerable, and even a 3C rise as postulated by
e.g. Jim Hanson, won't do much to the average temperature at the south pole
which is well below freezing the bulk of the year.
Me, I favor nukes for power. However, for transporation, we need some form
of high energy-density, transportable, relatively safe liquid fuel, and so
far, nothing does it better than refined petroleum products. On the other
hand, they're becoming more scarce by the day (abiotic nonsense aside).
scott
Lynn McGuire
Jun 8, 2012, 6:03:47 PM6/8/12
to
for cars. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) wants to be
vapor too much for cars. Trucks and Locomotives
are highly OK for LNG though.
My current understanding of LNG transportable tanks
(55 to 100+ gallon) can hold LNG as a liquid for up
to a week. Then the vaporization starts and you
get an expansion coefficient of 3600 to 1.
And yes, I favor nukes for power with peaking on
natural gas. Nukes just do not follow load at all.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Jun 8, 2012, 6:14:46 PM6/8/12
to
living. Believe me, I know complex systems. I deal
with customers all the time specifying infeasible
systems that do not have a prayer of even getting
close to the plane of convergence for a rigorous
thermodynamic model.
With CO2 (and methane to a much lesser amount), we
are talking 400 ppm. That is 400 parts per million.
That is less than one percent. That is less than 0.1
percent. That is a very small amount to be force an
entire system on.
Aren't the scientists fairly sure that one of the
previous periods had over 1,000 ppm CO2 in the air ?
Lynn
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 8, 2012, 6:21:45 PM6/8/12
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:ce43cd06-fe88-4bcd...@z4g2000pbz.googlegroups.c
om:
> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> The general
>> human population does not at this time seem to be headed
>> towards the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova
>> accepts as the norm.
>
> I side with Ben Bova on this.
>
> I believe that the norm is 2% per annum population growth in
> developed countries - much lower than in the Third World, but
> still positive and exponential. Even 0.01% exponential
> population growth will lead to disaster, it just takes longer.
Except that in most developed countries, population grown has
declined to the point where it's negative in many of them.
Seriously negative in some. The US population would be declining
without immigration.
developed world is that we have birth control in a technological
society where children are an expense instead of an asset. The same
is happening in less developed countries, as their technology
reaches that same point.
You've just argued that it is literally impossible for population
growth to have *ever* declined. Moron.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:ce43cd06-fe88-4bcd...@z4g2000pbz.googlegroups.c
om:
> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> The general
>> human population does not at this time seem to be headed
>> towards the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova
>> accepts as the norm.
>
> I side with Ben Bova on this.
>
> I believe that the norm is 2% per annum population growth in
> developed countries - much lower than in the Third World, but
> still positive and exponential. Even 0.01% exponential
> population growth will lead to disaster, it just takes longer.
declined to the point where it's negative in many of them.
Seriously negative in some. The US population would be declining
without immigration.
>
> The reason that we have such low population growth rates in the
> developed world right now is that we have had severe
> unemployment conditions since the late 1960s, almost without
> letup, the 1980s mini- boom notwithstanding.
No, the reason we have such low population growth rates in the
> The reason that we have such low population growth rates in the
> developed world right now is that we have had severe
> unemployment conditions since the late 1960s, almost without
> letup, the 1980s mini- boom notwithstanding.
developed world is that we have birth control in a technological
society where children are an expense instead of an asset. The same
is happening in less developed countries, as their technology
reaches that same point.
>
> The next generation will be composed of the children of those
> who still had kids _despite_ not being able to afford a house in
> the suburbs - thus, over-represented among them will be people
> who go to church regularly and who didn't go to college. And so
> the three or more child family will be the norm in the next
> generation. Current low birth rates, therefore, are just a
> temporary reflection of the elimination of the picky people from
> the population who refuse to breed under less-than-ideal
> conditions.
100% of history says you're smoking some mighty powerful dope.
> The next generation will be composed of the children of those
> who still had kids _despite_ not being able to afford a house in
> the suburbs - thus, over-represented among them will be people
> who go to church regularly and who didn't go to college. And so
> the three or more child family will be the norm in the next
> generation. Current low birth rates, therefore, are just a
> temporary reflection of the elimination of the picky people from
> the population who refuse to breed under less-than-ideal
> conditions.
You've just argued that it is literally impossible for population
growth to have *ever* declined. Moron.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Bannister
Jun 8, 2012, 8:06:40 PM6/8/12
to
On 8/06/12 11:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> A recent candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination openly
> spoke of abolishing the First Amendment.
>
> So, to say there is _no_ danger in this direction, even though this
> goal is not espoused openly outside of a very small and extreme
> lunatic fringe, exaggerates matters.
What price the freedom of speech when Bradley Manning is locked up and
Julian Assange is pursued?
--
Robert Bannister
>
> A recent candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination openly
> spoke of abolishing the First Amendment.
>
> So, to say there is _no_ danger in this direction, even though this
> goal is not espoused openly outside of a very small and extreme
> lunatic fringe, exaggerates matters.
What price the freedom of speech when Bradley Manning is locked up and
Julian Assange is pursued?
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Jun 8, 2012, 9:03:06 PM6/8/12
to
On 9/06/12 4:20 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> The general
>> human population does not at this time seem to be headed towards
>> the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova accepts as the norm.
>
> I side with Ben Bova on this.
>
> I believe that the norm is 2% per annum population growth in developed
> countries
I thought the birth rate in developed countries was already below a
> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> The general
>> human population does not at this time seem to be headed towards
>> the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova accepts as the norm.
>
> I side with Ben Bova on this.
>
> I believe that the norm is 2% per annum population growth in developed
> countries
sustainable level. The only things keeping the population numbers up are
refugees and immigration.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Jun 8, 2012, 9:07:23 PM6/8/12
to
On 9/06/12 4:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
> is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
That is strange. In what way are trains safer from terrorists than
> Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
> is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
planes? Some of us remember Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigade and
trains being held to ransom for days.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Jun 8, 2012, 9:10:36 PM6/8/12
to
On 9/06/12 4:38 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 6/8/12 4:16 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
>> is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
>> reducing those.
>
> It's #1 because there's so much of it.
>
> However, the others are much more powerful and have a vastly
> disproportionate effect.
>
> Moreover, the water vapor concentration is normal for a mostly
> ocean-covered world. This concentration has stayed (globally) pretty
> much constant, and simple physics dictates it will always be dominated
> by the average temperature over the water regions.
>
> Adding more methane or CO2 is a *CHANGE* to the system -- and one that,
> due to the butterfly/chaos effects, is hard to quantify, but is
> undoubtedly THERE.
But all the "cures" involve taxing industry in the hope that they will
> On 6/8/12 4:16 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
>> is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
>> reducing those.
>
> It's #1 because there's so much of it.
>
> However, the others are much more powerful and have a vastly
> disproportionate effect.
>
> Moreover, the water vapor concentration is normal for a mostly
> ocean-covered world. This concentration has stayed (globally) pretty
> much constant, and simple physics dictates it will always be dominated
> by the average temperature over the water regions.
>
> Adding more methane or CO2 is a *CHANGE* to the system -- and one that,
> due to the butterfly/chaos effects, is hard to quantify, but is
> undoubtedly THERE.
clean up their act, but nobody wants to get rid of the millions of
cattle that are major methane producers. We've got a carbon tax starting
next month, but I doubt the USA or China will ever adopt one.
--
Robert Bannister
David DeLaney
Jun 8, 2012, 10:00:45 PM6/8/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> 2: Because as humane interrogation will show, the aged in
>> the SF community are no more capable of noticing what's
>> happening with birth rates than I am capable of peeing
>> molten gold. In their defence, willful ignorance seems to
>> be a core value for a certain sort of SF person.
...
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> 2: Because as humane interrogation will show, the aged in
>> the SF community are no more capable of noticing what's
>> happening with birth rates than I am capable of peeing
>> molten gold. In their defence, willful ignorance seems to
>> be a core value for a certain sort of SF person.
>I do find your treating it as dogma (I really don't think there's
>anywhere near enough science yet) that this *must* happen, is
>unavoidable, can't be reversed, doesn't change with cultures (I did say
>the evidence so far is somewhat cross-cultural), and only an idiot could
>disagree, to be a religious position somewhat in advance of the facts.
Perhaps sir is unfamiliar with James' extremely advanced techniques of
>anywhere near enough science yet) that this *must* happen, is
>unavoidable, can't be reversed, doesn't change with cultures (I did say
>the evidence so far is somewhat cross-cultural), and only an idiot could
>disagree, to be a religious position somewhat in advance of the facts.
deadpan sarcasm?
Dave "the grim meathook dystopian future that will result if populations come
under control, sensible people get put in charge of governments, and scarcity
ceases to be used as a memetic quirt to browbeat the proletariat with" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
Jun 8, 2012, 10:04:20 PM6/8/12
to
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>The reason that we have such low population growth rates in the
>developed world right now is that we have had severe unemployment
>conditions since the late 1960s, almost without letup, the 1980s mini-
>boom notwithstanding.
Mmmm, no. Just no. There is this thing called the Pill, and these other things
>The reason that we have such low population growth rates in the
>developed world right now is that we have had severe unemployment
>conditions since the late 1960s, almost without letup, the 1980s mini-
>boom notwithstanding.
called "condoms". The former, and education and empowerment efforts around
the world, showed that (as James has noted, slightly more eloquently) the
moment you give women the actual choice of whether to pump medium-large
blobs of flesh out of a not-that-large opening every year or two for the rest
of their lives or until 45, whichever comes first, they CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO,
SO MUCH. Who'd have thought?
>The next generation will be composed of the children of those who
>still had kids _despite_ not being able to afford a house in the
>suburbs - thus, over-represented among them will be people who go to
>church regularly and who didn't go to college. And so the three or
>more child family will be the norm in the next generation.
Dave
David DeLaney
Jun 8, 2012, 10:07:01 PM6/8/12
to
some nondescript former empires and some other old worn-out countries or
upstart new ones. You know, where it's not significant.
Robert Carnegie
Jun 8, 2012, 10:46:48 PM6/8/12
to
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 3:04:20 AM UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >The reason that we have such low population growth rates in the
> >developed world right now is that we have had severe unemployment
> >conditions since the late 1960s, almost without letup, the 1980s mini-
> >boom notwithstanding.
>
> Mmmm, no. Just no. There is this thing called the Pill, and these other things
> called "condoms". The former, and education and empowerment efforts around
> the world, showed that (as James has noted, slightly more eloquently) the
> moment you give women the actual choice of whether to pump medium-large
> blobs of flesh out of a not-that-large opening every year or two for the rest
> of their lives or until 45, whichever comes first, they CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO,
> SO MUCH. Who'd have thought?
Let me point out that Christians want to,
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >The reason that we have such low population growth rates in the
> >developed world right now is that we have had severe unemployment
> >conditions since the late 1960s, almost without letup, the 1980s mini-
> >boom notwithstanding.
>
> Mmmm, no. Just no. There is this thing called the Pill, and these other things
> called "condoms". The former, and education and empowerment efforts around
> the world, showed that (as James has noted, slightly more eloquently) the
> moment you give women the actual choice of whether to pump medium-large
> blobs of flesh out of a not-that-large opening every year or two for the rest
> of their lives or until 45, whichever comes first, they CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO,
> SO MUCH. Who'd have thought?
and do, take away that choice from women.
Not /all/ Christians, probably.
Until someone develops a contraceptive plant
that you can ironically grow from seed at home,
I assume it will go on.
Pennyroyal and other herbs evidently don't really
work (or maybe tea just never caught on again in
the U.S.), and seem to be all listed as poisonous,
although maybe that is the doing of Christians
as well.
Robert Carnegie
Jun 8, 2012, 11:10:04 PM6/8/12
to
to believe that nothing can be done to stop
anthropogenic climate change /after/ you're
forced to abandon the "just a natural cycle"
position.
I think you are allowed to play the "water vapor"
card at any point, so no foul there.
With a worldwide perspective, the obvious step
to address U.S.-based pollution is a nuclear war
that eliminates polluting industries and the
population that they serve, but it's difficult
for other nations to agree on the co-ordination.
Also, the Third World ought to be using one of
the more efficient wood-stoves that have been
recently invented. Unfortunately, one of the
best runs on electricity - a big drawback!
Richard Todd
Jun 8, 2012, 11:26:23 PM6/8/12
to
hijack a train and fly it into a NYC skyscraper. :-)
James Nicoll
Jun 9, 2012, 12:20:21 AM6/9/12
to
In article <a3flma...@mid.individual.net>,
http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=24
I mean, not that it will do any good but in fact you're quite wrong. Not
only are most industrialized nations nowhere near 2% growth a year,
some are actually declining in number.
>I thought the birth rate in developed countries was already below a
>sustainable level. The only things keeping the population numbers up are
>refugees and immigration.
Yeah, pretty much. See, for example, this chart of Total Fertility Rates:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>On 9/06/12 4:20 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>> The general
>>> human population does not at this time seem to be headed towards
>>> the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova accepts as the norm.
>>
>> I side with Ben Bova on this.
>>
>> I believe that the norm is 2% per annum population growth in developed
>> countries
www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf
>On 9/06/12 4:20 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>> The general
>>> human population does not at this time seem to be headed towards
>>> the runaway population growth a geezer like Bova accepts as the norm.
>>
>> I side with Ben Bova on this.
>>
>> I believe that the norm is 2% per annum population growth in developed
>> countries
http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=24
I mean, not that it will do any good but in fact you're quite wrong. Not
only are most industrialized nations nowhere near 2% growth a year,
some are actually declining in number.
>I thought the birth rate in developed countries was already below a
>sustainable level. The only things keeping the population numbers up are
>refugees and immigration.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
James Nicoll
Jun 9, 2012, 12:23:51 AM6/9/12
to
In article <slrnjt5al...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
tracks as political statements.
David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>On 9/06/12 4:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
>>> is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
>>
>>That is strange. In what way are trains safer from terrorists than
>>planes? Some of us remember Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigade and
>>trains being held to ransom for days.
>
>In that it hasn't happened, as such, in the IMPORTANT country as yet. Just in
>some nondescript former empires and some other old worn-out countries or
>upstart new ones. You know, where it's not significant.
You know, I have a distinct memory the US has had people sabotage
>Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>On 9/06/12 4:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
>>> is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
>>
>>That is strange. In what way are trains safer from terrorists than
>>planes? Some of us remember Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigade and
>>trains being held to ransom for days.
>
>In that it hasn't happened, as such, in the IMPORTANT country as yet. Just in
>some nondescript former empires and some other old worn-out countries or
>upstart new ones. You know, where it's not significant.
tracks as political statements.
James Nicoll
Jun 9, 2012, 12:28:50 AM6/9/12
to
the Grand Tour series. The Stoners, having somehow
slipped across timelines due to a previously un-
documented effect of near light speed travel,
find themselves in the Grand Tour universe, where
they proceed to use their alien superscience to
save the world.
Cryptoengineer
Jun 9, 2012, 12:37:27 AM6/9/12
to
On Jun 8, 11:26 pm, Richard Todd <rmt...@ichotolot.servalan.com>
wrote:
Your choices are limited, but not zero. Try looking at what the Pan Am
Building (now labeled 'MetLife Building') sits on top of.
pt
wrote:
Building (now labeled 'MetLife Building') sits on top of.
pt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Jun 9, 2012, 12:46:00 AM6/9/12
to
On 2012-06-08 22:46:48 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:
> Let me point out that Christians want to,
> and do, take away that choice from women.
>
> Not /all/ Christians, probably.
Definitely not all.
> Let me point out that Christians want to,
> and do, take away that choice from women.
>
> Not /all/ Christians, probably.
> Until someone develops a contraceptive plant
> that you can ironically grow from seed at home,
> I assume it will go on.
>
> Pennyroyal and other herbs evidently don't really
> work (or maybe tea just never caught on again in
> the U.S.), and seem to be all listed as poisonous,
> although maybe that is the doing of Christians
> as well.
the dose that will trigger a miscarriage and the dose that will kill
the mother is small and hard to determine, and varies with the
individual's body chemistry. In some cases the lethal dose may be
BELOW the effective dose. If one is sufficiently desperate one might
try it anyway, but it's not a practical choice for most women.
Silphium apparently worked in early pregnancy and was NOT poisonous --
in fact, it was used in cooking for its flavor, as well as its various
medicinal benefits -- but it's also apparently extinct, as it wasn't
easily cultivated and the supply in its limited habitat in North Africa
was used up about 1,000 years ago.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jun 9, 2012, 1:00:33 AM6/9/12
to
On 6/8/12 5:13 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> Me, I favor nukes for power. However, for transporation, we need some form
> of high energy-density, transportable, relatively safe liquid fuel, and so
> far, nothing does it better than refined petroleum products.
Then use the nukes. Synthesize your hydrocarbons from water and
>
> Me, I favor nukes for power. However, for transporation, we need some form
> of high energy-density, transportable, relatively safe liquid fuel, and so
> far, nothing does it better than refined petroleum products.
atmospheric CO2. Voila! carbon-neutral gasoline and diesel.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jun 9, 2012, 1:08:14 AM6/9/12
to
On 6/8/12 6:14 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> With CO2 (and methane to a much lesser amount), we
> are talking 400 ppm. That is 400 parts per million.
> That is less than one percent. That is less than 0.1
> percent. That is a very small amount to be force an
> entire system on.
And to kill a human being requires ~1ng/kg, or one part per trillion,
> With CO2 (and methane to a much lesser amount), we
> are talking 400 ppm. That is 400 parts per million.
> That is less than one percent. That is less than 0.1
> percent. That is a very small amount to be force an
> entire system on.
of Botulinum A.
It all depends on exactly what the system is and how it works. The
problem is that we don't know how it works, and -- unlike software or
other systems we build -- if THIS one fails we can't just shrug and walk
out of the lab and think about it for a while.
Yes, indeed, there have been period when CO2 was higher. And ones where
O2 was also higher. And apparently ones that approached "earth as frozen
snowball". The fact is that we evolved during a period in which the
Earth has particular characteristics. We -- and now, our civilization --
are built around those characteristics. Screwing around with the only
biosphere we have is potentially shooting ourselves in the head.
On the other hand -- I don't see any way to STOP it, directly. China is
becoming the major culprit, burning coal like no tomorrow, and no one's
in a position to tell them they can't. Plus the idiots who look at the
near-miracle that happened with the Japanese reactors and instead see
OMG MUST PANIC, thus setting back nuclear power with unreasoning fear.
Dimensional Traveler
Jun 9, 2012, 1:28:57 AM6/9/12
to
On 6/7/2012 6:02 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 8/06/12 8:12 AM, Drak Bibliophile wrote:
>> On 6/7/2012 6:52 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
>>> Drak Bibliophile<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2012 5:57 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>>>>> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>>>
>>>> Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
>>>> with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
>>>> talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s? Americans in the past
>>>> took pride in their Religious Beliefs. Why are things so different now?
>>>> Why should we fear religious people now but didn't in the past?
>>>
>>> We were talking about Heinlein. The Heinlein novel was written in
>>> 1940.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> How many people in 1940 seriously talked about "fears of a theocracy"?
>>
>> In any case, Heinlein was no prophet and neither is Ben Bova.
>>
>> Do you really believe that Christians would support a theocracy?
>>
>>
> I doubt any large group of Christians could agree on anything. To start
> with, they would deny that the rest of the group were Christian at all.
Hence the need for a theocracy so they can force them back onto the one
true path.
> On 8/06/12 8:12 AM, Drak Bibliophile wrote:
>> On 6/7/2012 6:52 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
>>> Drak Bibliophile<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2012 5:57 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>>>>> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>>>
>>>> Finally, this "fear" of a US theocracy has only started in recent years
>>>> with the growth of people who openly hate religion. How many people
>>>> talked about a fear of a US theocracy in 1950s? Americans in the past
>>>> took pride in their Religious Beliefs. Why are things so different now?
>>>> Why should we fear religious people now but didn't in the past?
>>>
>>> We were talking about Heinlein. The Heinlein novel was written in
>>> 1940.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> How many people in 1940 seriously talked about "fears of a theocracy"?
>>
>> In any case, Heinlein was no prophet and neither is Ben Bova.
>>
>> Do you really believe that Christians would support a theocracy?
>>
>>
> I doubt any large group of Christians could agree on anything. To start
> with, they would deny that the rest of the group were Christian at all.
Hence the need for a theocracy so they can force them back onto the one
true path.
Dimensional Traveler
Jun 9, 2012, 1:31:47 AM6/9/12
to
On 6/7/2012 6:59 PM, Drak Bibliophile wrote:
> On 6/7/2012 8:35 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 8:34 pm, Drak Bibliophile<drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2012 7:23 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 6:46 pm, Drak Bibliophile<drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2012 4:33 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, Drak Bibliophile<drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>> McGuire<l...@winsim.com>
>>>>>>>>> and his cousin Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as
>>>>>>>>> they say, nothing new under the sun; Bova has apparently decided
>>>>>>>>> to combine two elements under one set of covers, which is the
>>>>>>>>> only way any of us can do anything "original" really.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious
>>>>>>>> theocracy. The book is actually somewhere between
>>>>>>>> Religious Dictatorship as you mentioned and a
>>>>>>>> Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
>>>
>>>>>>>> I forget which 16th ?? century philosopher it was who
>>>>>>>> said, "I read in the New Testament about the persecution
>>>>>>>> of the Church but never do I read about the Church
>>>>>>>> persecuting others". Very sobering thoughts about those
>>>>>>>> who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic Republic.
>>>
>>>>>>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic
>>>>>>> Republic?
>>>
>>>>>>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
>>>
>>>>>> They're around. Quite aside from the Muslim wingnuts who want to
>>>>>> establish a 'Caliphate', there are equally wingnutty Christians. Try
>>>>>> googling 'New Apostolic Reformation', 'Christian Reconstructionism',
>>>>>> and 'Dominionism'. Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have been
>>>>>> linked to the movement, though I have no idea how strongly they hold
>>>>>> such beliefs.
>>>
>>>>>> pt
>>>
>>>>> I've heard of such groups but I've only heard that they want a
>>>>> theocracy
>>>>> from Liberals nothing from their own writings.
>>>
>>>>> Would you want to stand trial with the "level of evidence" the same as
>>>>> the evidence that they want a theocracy?
>>>
>>>> I don't need to. This is a usenet newsgroup, not court of law.
>>>
>>>> pt
>>>
>>> In other words, it's opinion not fact.
>>
>> I don't feel the need to establish legal-strength evidence before
>> expressing an opinion. When shown to be wrong, I admit it, and
>> apologize.
>>
>> Since you irritated me, I went out to find better evidence that such
>> Christian wingnuttery existed.
>>
>> It didn't take long.
>>
>> Try reading this:
>>
>> http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/ChristianInauguralAddress.htm
>>
>> Its scary.
>>
>> pt
>
> Oh yes, "Christian Identity".
>
> According to this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christian_Identity it's
> just racist nonsense trying to cloak itself in Christianity.
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would "buy into" this nonsense is
> insulting.
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would accept a theocracy is
> nonsense. Just the divisions within Christianity should tell you that a
> theocracy would be nearly impossible to establish in the US.
>
> To use these sort of idiots to claim that Christians would like a
> theocracy is the same as to say that the Soviet Union was a "model
> atheist state".
>
You're moving the goal posts. Its gone from "show me some people who
want a theocracy" to "prove to me that every Christian everywhere
demands a theocracy". With a side of "I won't believe your evidence
because I've already decided no Christian wants a theocracy".
> On 6/7/2012 8:35 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 8:34 pm, Drak Bibliophile<drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2012 7:23 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 6:46 pm, Drak Bibliophile<drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2012 4:33 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 7, 5:18 pm, Drak Bibliophile<drakbiblioph...@comcast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article<jqqn3f$k3...@dont-email.me>, Lynn
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> McGuire<l...@winsim.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>>>>>>>>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>>>>>>>>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>>>>>>>>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>>>>>>>>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>>>>>>>>> is Bova really getting down on life ?
>>>>>>>>>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/
>>>>>>>>>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is
>>>>>>>>>> set in 2098 and he has the USA turned into a
>>>>>>>>>> religious theocracy and global warming has risen
>>>>>>>>>> the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>>>> theocracy" is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody
>>>>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious
>>>>>>>>> and his cousin Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as
>>>>>>>>> they say, nothing new under the sun; Bova has apparently decided
>>>>>>>>> to combine two elements under one set of covers, which is the
>>>>>>>>> only way any of us can do anything "original" really.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious
>>>>>>>> theocracy. The book is actually somewhere between
>>>>>>>> Religious Dictatorship as you mentioned and a
>>>>>>>> Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
>>>
>>>>>>>> I forget which 16th ?? century philosopher it was who
>>>>>>>> said, "I read in the New Testament about the persecution
>>>>>>>> of the Church but never do I read about the Church
>>>>>>>> persecuting others". Very sobering thoughts about those
>>>>>>>> who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic Republic.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, I'll believe in global warming and massive sea
>>>>>>>> rises when I see them. After all, some of my
>>>>>>>> grandparents were from Missouri.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>>>> rises when I see them. After all, some of my
>>>>>>>> grandparents were from Missouri.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic
>>>>>>> Republic?
>>>
>>>>>>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
>>>
>>>>>> They're around. Quite aside from the Muslim wingnuts who want to
>>>>>> establish a 'Caliphate', there are equally wingnutty Christians. Try
>>>>>> googling 'New Apostolic Reformation', 'Christian Reconstructionism',
>>>>>> and 'Dominionism'. Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have been
>>>>>> linked to the movement, though I have no idea how strongly they hold
>>>>>> such beliefs.
>>>
>>>>>> pt
>>>
>>>>> I've heard of such groups but I've only heard that they want a
>>>>> theocracy
>>>>> from Liberals nothing from their own writings.
>>>
>>>>> Would you want to stand trial with the "level of evidence" the same as
>>>>> the evidence that they want a theocracy?
>>>
>>>> I don't need to. This is a usenet newsgroup, not court of law.
>>>
>>>> pt
>>>
>>> In other words, it's opinion not fact.
>>
>> I don't feel the need to establish legal-strength evidence before
>> expressing an opinion. When shown to be wrong, I admit it, and
>> apologize.
>>
>> Since you irritated me, I went out to find better evidence that such
>> Christian wingnuttery existed.
>>
>> It didn't take long.
>>
>> Try reading this:
>>
>> http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/ChristianInauguralAddress.htm
>>
>> Its scary.
>>
>> pt
>
> Oh yes, "Christian Identity".
>
> According to this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christian_Identity it's
> just racist nonsense trying to cloak itself in Christianity.
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would "buy into" this nonsense is
> insulting.
>
> To imply that Christians as a group would accept a theocracy is
> nonsense. Just the divisions within Christianity should tell you that a
> theocracy would be nearly impossible to establish in the US.
>
> To use these sort of idiots to claim that Christians would like a
> theocracy is the same as to say that the Soviet Union was a "model
> atheist state".
>
You're moving the goal posts. Its gone from "show me some people who
want a theocracy" to "prove to me that every Christian everywhere
demands a theocracy". With a side of "I won't believe your evidence
because I've already decided no Christian wants a theocracy".
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jun 9, 2012, 1:43:01 AM6/9/12
to
In article <4fd2df19$0$36817$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Well, there are theocracies and theocracies.
I mean, I suppose the United Kingdom is a Theocracy.
In fiction, you've got the Humanx Commonwealth and Stacia Kane's Chess Putnam
milieu with the first being a nice place to live and the second not that
bad as long as the ghosts don't eat you.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I mean, I suppose the United Kingdom is a Theocracy.
In fiction, you've got the Humanx Commonwealth and Stacia Kane's Chess Putnam
milieu with the first being a nice place to live and the second not that
bad as long as the ghosts don't eat you.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dimensional Traveler
Jun 9, 2012, 1:45:50 AM6/9/12
to
On 6/8/2012 9:23 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article<slrnjt5al...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> David DeLaney<d...@vic.com> wrote:
>> Robert Bannister<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/06/12 4:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
>>>> is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
>>>
>>> That is strange. In what way are trains safer from terrorists than
>>> planes? Some of us remember Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigade and
>>> trains being held to ransom for days.
>>
>> In that it hasn't happened, as such, in the IMPORTANT country as yet. Just in
>> some nondescript former empires and some other old worn-out countries or
>> upstart new ones. You know, where it's not significant.
>
> You know, I have a distinct memory the US has had people sabotage
> tracks as political statements.
Mostly by laying down on them in front of trains and occasionally
> In article<slrnjt5al...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> David DeLaney<d...@vic.com> wrote:
>> Robert Bannister<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/06/12 4:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
>>>> is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
>>>
>>> That is strange. In what way are trains safer from terrorists than
>>> planes? Some of us remember Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigade and
>>> trains being held to ransom for days.
>>
>> In that it hasn't happened, as such, in the IMPORTANT country as yet. Just in
>> some nondescript former empires and some other old worn-out countries or
>> upstart new ones. You know, where it's not significant.
>
> You know, I have a distinct memory the US has had people sabotage
> tracks as political statements.
getting run over by them.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Jun 9, 2012, 1:52:05 AM6/9/12
to
Archbishop of Canterbury were an absolute dictator, rather than a
harmless figurehead, then you'd have a theocracy.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jun 9, 2012, 1:57:44 AM6/9/12
to
In article <jquoa5$dcl$1...@dont-email.me>,
But he's not the head of the Church, the sovereign (currently QEII) is,
so the head of the state and the head of the curch are the same. Not
to mention the seats in Parliment reserved for Bishops..
so the head of the state and the head of the curch are the same. Not
to mention the seats in Parliment reserved for Bishops..
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Jun 9, 2012, 2:01:06 AM6/9/12
to
pretty powerless, and what authority she has as head of the church is
subordinated to her power as head of state, rather than the reverse.
Leif Roar Moldskred
Jun 9, 2012, 2:05:55 AM6/9/12
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> Queen Elizabeth is not an absolute monarch, either -- in fact, she's
> pretty powerless, and what authority she has as head of the church is
> subordinated to her power as head of state, rather than the reverse.
More to the point, although she's the head of the church, she is not
> Queen Elizabeth is not an absolute monarch, either -- in fact, she's
> pretty powerless, and what authority she has as head of the church is
> subordinated to her power as head of state, rather than the reverse.
herself clergy or some other form of religious professional or part of
a religious caste.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jun 9, 2012, 2:11:27 AM6/9/12
to
In article <jquor2$fj6$1...@dont-email.me>,
Sure. She's not an absolute monarch -- in fact. In theory she has
the power to dismiss her government and rule by dictate. The fact that
nobody would listen to her and she would be shown the door doesn't change
the theory.
wiki..wiki..
Here's the formula for her relation to the COE:
The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has
the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church
of England. The canon law of the Church of England states,
"We acknowledge that the Queen's most excellent Majesty,
acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest
power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority
over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as
civil."[28] In practice this power is often exercised through
Parliament and the Prime Minister.
I guess I'm saying that just because she as Defender of the Faith
and the Church don't exercise their theoritical power to burn
heretics at the stake, doesn't mean it's not technically a theocracy.
the power to dismiss her government and rule by dictate. The fact that
nobody would listen to her and she would be shown the door doesn't change
the theory.
wiki..wiki..
Here's the formula for her relation to the COE:
The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has
the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church
of England. The canon law of the Church of England states,
"We acknowledge that the Queen's most excellent Majesty,
acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest
power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority
over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as
civil."[28] In practice this power is often exercised through
Parliament and the Prime Minister.
I guess I'm saying that just because she as Defender of the Faith
and the Church don't exercise their theoritical power to burn
heretics at the stake, doesn't mean it's not technically a theocracy.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Jun 9, 2012, 2:32:32 AM6/9/12
to
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jun 9, 2012, 2:59:02 AM6/9/12
to
In article <jquqm0$n1t$1...@dont-email.me>,
Well, I'm not ignoring them, it's just hmm like saying Norstrilia
is not a monarchy just because nobody's seen the Queen in over 1000 years.
Anyway, it doesn't affect my "there are theocracies and theocracies"
point either way.
is not a monarchy just because nobody's seen the Queen in over 1000 years.
Anyway, it doesn't affect my "there are theocracies and theocracies"
point either way.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages