Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
_Farmer in the Sky_, Robert Heinlein
37 views
Skip to first unread message
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 5:01:10 AM9/20/11
to
This was among my favorite Heinleins. On re-reading, it slipped in my
estimation, because many of the details are dated. It was originally
written in 1950, and I think it was intended to show the wonders and
details of space travel. Unfortuantely, I now know more about the
details, so for everything up to getting to Ganymede, I was dropping
out of the story frequently when I saw a statement to think about
whether it was true (mostly not, but mostly he couldn't have known).
And now, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_in_the_Sky
and the Ganymede article, I see now that the three inner Galilean
moons are in a 1:2:4 resonance and therefore can never line up, and
it's about half water, and surface gravity is less than half what he
thought.
The blunder about relativity has been discussed here before.
The Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe shows up in even a stronger
form. There is strict food rationing on Earth, despite new yeast
factories and such, due to (most recently) China refusing to control
its population. Near the end is "But you do know that in the greatest
wars the Eath ever had there were always more people after the war
than before, no matter how many were killed." _Dirty Little Secrets
of World War II_ by Dunnigan and Nofi comes up with a rough estimate
of the death toll, direct and indirect, due to World War II: 100
million. No, I don't think there were that many births. If you look
at combatants only, which is fairer, Russia alone lost some 25-30
million.
Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
which there has never been found an exception* is that
populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
What's worse here is the posited power situation. The fact that
people have private helicopters is a pretty good sign of things to
come. The ship is revealed to use a total mass-energy conversion
drive. More, Ganymede is said to be low on nitrogen, and the best way
they've thought of to get more is to transmute oxygen, which has a
higher nuclear binding energy than nitrogen! If they have that much
power, they could easily make the Earth's deserts bloom.
On the positive side, I like the terraforming and settling details.
There's one part of Heinlein's writing that I liked a lot but that
tapered out and disappeared later. The mysterious aliens are shown to
have had advanced tech in their walker, and Bill considers them
therefore to be men in spirit though not in body. I liked the
mysterious and powerful Martians of _Red Planet_ and _Stranger in a
Strange Land_, and the "primitive" Venusians of _Space Cadet_ who
could do amazing tricks of chemistry. It was a broad-minded and
awe-inspiring notion that Heinlein discarded.
So any re-read is likely to be starting when they get to Ganymede, and
skip the Malthusian bull session.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
estimation, because many of the details are dated. It was originally
written in 1950, and I think it was intended to show the wonders and
details of space travel. Unfortuantely, I now know more about the
details, so for everything up to getting to Ganymede, I was dropping
out of the story frequently when I saw a statement to think about
whether it was true (mostly not, but mostly he couldn't have known).
And now, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_in_the_Sky
and the Ganymede article, I see now that the three inner Galilean
moons are in a 1:2:4 resonance and therefore can never line up, and
it's about half water, and surface gravity is less than half what he
thought.
The blunder about relativity has been discussed here before.
The Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe shows up in even a stronger
form. There is strict food rationing on Earth, despite new yeast
factories and such, due to (most recently) China refusing to control
its population. Near the end is "But you do know that in the greatest
wars the Eath ever had there were always more people after the war
than before, no matter how many were killed." _Dirty Little Secrets
of World War II_ by Dunnigan and Nofi comes up with a rough estimate
of the death toll, direct and indirect, due to World War II: 100
million. No, I don't think there were that many births. If you look
at combatants only, which is fairer, Russia alone lost some 25-30
million.
Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
which there has never been found an exception* is that
populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
What's worse here is the posited power situation. The fact that
people have private helicopters is a pretty good sign of things to
come. The ship is revealed to use a total mass-energy conversion
drive. More, Ganymede is said to be low on nitrogen, and the best way
they've thought of to get more is to transmute oxygen, which has a
higher nuclear binding energy than nitrogen! If they have that much
power, they could easily make the Earth's deserts bloom.
On the positive side, I like the terraforming and settling details.
There's one part of Heinlein's writing that I liked a lot but that
tapered out and disappeared later. The mysterious aliens are shown to
have had advanced tech in their walker, and Bill considers them
therefore to be men in spirit though not in body. I liked the
mysterious and powerful Martians of _Red Planet_ and _Stranger in a
Strange Land_, and the "primitive" Venusians of _Space Cadet_ who
could do amazing tricks of chemistry. It was a broad-minded and
awe-inspiring notion that Heinlein discarded.
So any re-read is likely to be starting when they get to Ganymede, and
skip the Malthusian bull session.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Raymond Daley
Sep 20, 2011, 6:54:11 AM9/20/11
to
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
> This was among my favorite Heinleins.
I've got it but I've never read it. I'll try to make time fairly soon and
then come back with an opinion.
I'm just looking at his other stuff that I know I've read.
Have Spacesuit Will Travel - 1st read aged 9, loved it. Spent 25yrs trying
to find another copy. I liked it that much. It deserves to be a movie.
Magic, Inc. - Read it a few times, its pretty odd.
Orphans Of The Sky - Also read this fairly young too, its a cracker which
also deserves to be a movie
Starship Troopers - Read this for the 1st time not that long ago, not as
good as the film.
The Green Hills Of Earth - Good collection of shorts
The Man Who Sold The Moon - ditto
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress - Read it for the first time very recently, it
was pretty cool.
The Roads Must Roll - Read it a few times, its a good story. Not long enough
to be a movie but maybe would make a good sf short for tv?
Waldo - VERY weird, read it 4 or 5 times now. I'm not sure you could make
this into anything for tv or film. Its too weird.
Jerry Brown
Sep 20, 2011, 9:00:24 AM9/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:11 +0100, "Raymond Daley"
<raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
>> This was among my favorite Heinleins.
>
>I've got it but I've never read it. I'll try to make time fairly soon and
>then come back with an opinion.
>
>I'm just looking at his other stuff that I know I've read.
>
>Have Spacesuit Will Travel - 1st read aged 9, loved it. Spent 25yrs trying
>to find another copy. I liked it that much. It deserves to be a movie
I used to think that (especially with my dream casting of John Goodman
and Harry Dean Stanton as Jock and Tim), but now I'd hate to see what
happened to Starship Troopers happen to a Heinlein novel I actually
care about.
Starman Jones might be better (IMO), since that's less close to my
heart (even though it was the first Heinlein I ever read). They'd have
to fudge up an explanation for the doing jump calculations by hand
(computers don't work reliably near lightspeed maybe?)
--
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Quadibloc
Sep 20, 2011, 9:11:44 AM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 3:01 am, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> So any re-read is likely to be starting when they get to Ganymede, and
> skip the Malthusian bull session.
I saw a reference to Malthus becoming wrong just as he wrote here:
> So any re-read is likely to be starting when they get to Ganymede, and
> skip the Malthusian bull session.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/09/19/keith_tatlinger_shipping_container_inventor_dies/
but it didn't give a source.
New technologies do let us do more with less - thus, the Green
Revolution, sometimes dismissed as a "failure", saved a billion lives,
and made Norman Borlaug the greatest hero in history.
But the people who are recently reminding us of that have their own
political agenda, and it's important not to be misled. Improvements in
technology come along on their own schedule, not when we could use
them. Thus, the cure for AIDS hasn't come along yet, despite many
people dying from it.
And so there's no guarantee of _another_ Green Revolution after oil
gets too expensive to use for making fertilizer. There's no guarantee
that even Moore's Law won't reach its end.
The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
moral inversion.
The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates. Obviously, they
should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
the first place as a family.
Human life is the supreme, ultimate, moral value.
But instead, the book attempts to convey the attitude that tragedy is
sometimes a necessary and unavoidable part of progress.
If people are so desperate that they have to risk their lives to find
a decent life, then things have gotten badly out of hand; governments
have been instituted among men to make very, very sure that it never
comes to that. And it's time for the electorate to rise up and demand
performance in this area.
John Savard
James Nicoll
Sep 20, 2011, 10:07:04 AM9/20/11
to
In article <mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
>which there has never been found an exception* is that
>populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
>supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
>ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
>thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
>the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
>bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
>Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
>think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
>became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
>which there has never been found an exception* is that
>populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
>supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
>ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
>thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
>the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
>bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
>Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
>think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
>became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
In "about the time he wrote his big works" is "he" Heinlein
or Malthus?
If Heinlein, then I almost certainly pointed out Warren Thompson's
early work predates Heinlein's career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
And I probably pointed the Matters of France (where low birth
rates and a decline in relative but not absolute population
levels arguably contributed to WWI and WWII) and Ireland
(where the population has yet, iirc, to rebound to its pre-
Famine levels).
--
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
Sep 20, 2011, 10:16:06 AM9/20/11
to
In article <j5a6m8$e5s$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
in a reference to Sheri Tepper and her quaint, 1960s-esque
views on population growth (which, happily, are as nothing
compared to her other repellent political positions).
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
>>which there has never been found an exception* is that
>>populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
>>supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
>>ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
>>thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
>>the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
>>bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
>>Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
>>think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
>>became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
>
>In "about the time he wrote his big works" is "he" Heinlein
>or Malthus?
>
>If Heinlein, then I almost certainly pointed out Warren Thompson's
>early work predates Heinlein's career.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
>
>And I probably pointed the Matters of France (where low birth
>rates and a decline in relative but not absolute population
>levels arguably contributed to WWI and WWII) and Ireland
>(where the population has yet, iirc, to rebound to its pre-
>Famine levels).
And then, despite the fact she was never mentioned, I'd put
>In article <mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
>>which there has never been found an exception* is that
>>populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
>>supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
>>ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
>>thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
>>the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
>>bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
>>Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
>>think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
>>became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
>
>In "about the time he wrote his big works" is "he" Heinlein
>or Malthus?
>
>If Heinlein, then I almost certainly pointed out Warren Thompson's
>early work predates Heinlein's career.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
>
>And I probably pointed the Matters of France (where low birth
>rates and a decline in relative but not absolute population
>levels arguably contributed to WWI and WWII) and Ireland
>(where the population has yet, iirc, to rebound to its pre-
>Famine levels).
in a reference to Sheri Tepper and her quaint, 1960s-esque
views on population growth (which, happily, are as nothing
compared to her other repellent political positions).
Alexey Romanov
Sep 20, 2011, 11:22:26 AM9/20/11
to
already, and all of that is already being outstripped by the population
growth?
--
Alexey Romanov
lal_truckee
Sep 20, 2011, 11:53:29 AM9/20/11
to
On 9/20/11 6:11 AM, Quadibloc wrote re loss of sister:
> ... they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
to ponder: how many excess deaths were caused directly from settling the
Americas, starting (I believe) 20,000 years ago? (Trick question -
answer is none; everybody dies once.)
Or more simpley, 11 men were killed building the Golden Gate Bridge.
Rule of thumb at the time was one death per $1,000,000 project cost, yet
they proceeded to build. Moral or not?
>
> If people are so desperate that they have to risk their lives to find
> a decent life, then things have gotten badly out of hand; governments
> have been instituted among men to make very, very sure that it never
> comes to that.
How'd that work out in 1930s Europe?
> ... they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
> the first place as a family.
>
> Human life is the supreme, ultimate, moral value.
>
> But instead, the book attempts to convey the attitude that tragedy is
> sometimes a necessary and unavoidable part of progress.
I thought you lived in the Americas? Here's a gedanken statistic for you
>
> Human life is the supreme, ultimate, moral value.
>
> But instead, the book attempts to convey the attitude that tragedy is
> sometimes a necessary and unavoidable part of progress.
to ponder: how many excess deaths were caused directly from settling the
Americas, starting (I believe) 20,000 years ago? (Trick question -
answer is none; everybody dies once.)
Or more simpley, 11 men were killed building the Golden Gate Bridge.
Rule of thumb at the time was one death per $1,000,000 project cost, yet
they proceeded to build. Moral or not?
>
> If people are so desperate that they have to risk their lives to find
> a decent life, then things have gotten badly out of hand; governments
> have been instituted among men to make very, very sure that it never
> comes to that.
Raymond Daley
Sep 20, 2011, 12:50:55 PM9/20/11
to
"Jerry Brown" <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote in message
news:0v2h771p7oa5bapk9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:11 +0100, "Raymond Daley"
> <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
>>> This was among my favorite Heinleins.
>>
>>I've got it but I've never read it. I'll try to make time fairly soon and
>>then come back with an opinion.
>>
>>I'm just looking at his other stuff that I know I've read.
>>
>>Have Spacesuit Will Travel - 1st read aged 9, loved it. Spent 25yrs trying
>>to find another copy. I liked it that much. It deserves to be a movie
>
> I used to think that (especially with my dream casting of John Goodman
> and Harry Dean Stanton as Jock and Tim), but now I'd hate to see what
> happened to Starship Troopers happen to a Heinlein novel I actually
> care about.
>
> Starman Jones might be better (IMO), since that's less close to my
> heart (even though it was the first Heinlein I ever read).
I guess Starman Jones is next on my reading list then.
OK, I just finished reading "Farmer". It only took so long as I was
correcting it at the same time, not a very good e-version but its fixed now.
Sound enough story & premise, go be a frontiersman/homesteader due to
overcrowding and food rationing where you are.
It kinda runs along as "Wagon Train" in space and when I reached the bit
about the quake I had the sneaking suspicion I HAD read this but a LONG time
ago and probably only the once.
As per usual its badly written female characters who are either complete
homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews. Even Peggy gets tarred
that way. Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or did he just not know any
women or just didn't get them.
I assume he was a nerd at school too as once again his lead male boy gets
bullied by someone bigger. Its Ace Quiggle from "Have Spacesuit" all over
again. And theres a simlar bully (or bullies) in "Tunnel" too. Pretty sure
theres one in "Orphans" as well.
The whole finding alien tech seemed to be a tacked-on after thought which
ended up going nowhere. What really sucks huge donkey cocks is the book has
no real ending either.
Its a complete cop-out.
Raymond Daley
Sep 20, 2011, 12:58:30 PM9/20/11
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates.
utter shit or not worth the time they took to do.
Any decent pressure test would have flagged this as an issue long before
they ever left Earth.
But obviously Heinlein has to get them all as a dysfunctional family into
space and onto Ganymede so engineers a cop out to bypass common sense and
logic.
And fuck him for doing that. A better writer would have found an easier way
to disable the girl that didn't render an entire section of his story moot
and end off coming out looking like a complete cunt for not remembering what
he'd already said very vigorously about medical exams and tests.
Wanker.
garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Sep 20, 2011, 1:00:31 PM9/20/11
to
lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought you lived in the Americas? Here's a gedanken statistic for you
> to ponder: how many excess deaths were caused directly from settling the
> Americas, starting (I believe) 20,000 years ago?
Uhm, some hundred millions?
> I thought you lived in the Americas? Here's a gedanken statistic for you
> to ponder: how many excess deaths were caused directly from settling the
> Americas, starting (I believe) 20,000 years ago?
Without the Americas, there would be fewer people born (colonists
presented with unlimited land tend to have more children), consequently
fewer deaths.
> (Trick question -
> answer is none; everybody dies once.)
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Sep 20, 2011, 1:21:11 PM9/20/11
to
In article <1w3eq.17422$xz....@newsfe09.ams2>,
Or he wanted to be serialzed in "Boy's Life", the ofiicial magazine of
The Boy Scouts of America.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
The Boy Scouts of America.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Derek Lyons
Sep 20, 2011, 1:30:16 PM9/20/11
to
lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 9/20/11 6:11 AM, Quadibloc wrote re loss of sister:
>
>> ... they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>> the first place as a family.
>>
>> Human life is the supreme, ultimate, moral value.
>>
>> But instead, the book attempts to convey the attitude that tragedy is
>> sometimes a necessary and unavoidable part of progress.
>
>I thought you lived in the Americas? Here's a gedanken statistic for you
>to ponder: how many excess deaths were caused directly from settling the
>Americas, starting (I believe) 20,000 years ago? (Trick question -
>answer is none; everybody dies once.)
>
>Or more simpley, 11 men were killed building the Golden Gate Bridge.
>Rule of thumb at the time was one death per $1,000,000 project cost, yet
>they proceeded to build. Moral or not?
You're dealing with Quaddie - thus asking questions relevant in our
>On 9/20/11 6:11 AM, Quadibloc wrote re loss of sister:
>
>> ... they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>> the first place as a family.
>>
>> Human life is the supreme, ultimate, moral value.
>>
>> But instead, the book attempts to convey the attitude that tragedy is
>> sometimes a necessary and unavoidable part of progress.
>
>I thought you lived in the Americas? Here's a gedanken statistic for you
>to ponder: how many excess deaths were caused directly from settling the
>Americas, starting (I believe) 20,000 years ago? (Trick question -
>answer is none; everybody dies once.)
>
>Or more simpley, 11 men were killed building the Golden Gate Bridge.
>Rule of thumb at the time was one death per $1,000,000 project cost, yet
>they proceeded to build. Moral or not?
universe is a futile excersise as they are all too often irrelevant in
his.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 20, 2011, 1:41:21 PM9/20/11
to
In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
Meanwhile, the reason the adults were going to Ganymede had
nothing to do with the kids. (Pause to get out the book and
check names.)
OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is
so they can be married to each other without anybody making
snarky remarks. Molly was George's draftsman. If they'd married
and stayed on Earth, everybody would have said, "Oh, another
secretary** who schemed and plotted till she married the boss.
Ha ha." On Ganymede, there would be *nobody* who knew that Molly
had once worked for George, and her reputation would be safe.
That's the other reason George wanted to leave Bill behind;
because he might someday mention his mother, who wasn't Molly.
Why didn't they leave Peggy behind too? Because, as was pointed
out in another context when Peggy wanted to do something or
other, "Bill is a boy and older than you are." It wasn't safe to
leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth, but it was okay to
leave a boy of sixteen or seventeen, almost ready to go off to
college. But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
to get away from Bill altogether.
If I'd been Bill, I would've said "OK," gone to college on my
father's trust fund, studied whatever the hell *I* wanted to, and
cut them out of my life.
--
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.
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
>moral inversion.
>
>The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
>that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates. Obviously, they
>should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
>prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>the first place as a family.
I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
>
>The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
>moral inversion.
>
>The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
>that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates. Obviously, they
>should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
>prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>the first place as a family.
trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
Meanwhile, the reason the adults were going to Ganymede had
nothing to do with the kids. (Pause to get out the book and
check names.)
OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is
so they can be married to each other without anybody making
snarky remarks. Molly was George's draftsman. If they'd married
and stayed on Earth, everybody would have said, "Oh, another
secretary** who schemed and plotted till she married the boss.
Ha ha." On Ganymede, there would be *nobody* who knew that Molly
had once worked for George, and her reputation would be safe.
That's the other reason George wanted to leave Bill behind;
because he might someday mention his mother, who wasn't Molly.
Why didn't they leave Peggy behind too? Because, as was pointed
out in another context when Peggy wanted to do something or
other, "Bill is a boy and older than you are." It wasn't safe to
leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth, but it was okay to
leave a boy of sixteen or seventeen, almost ready to go off to
college. But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
to get away from Bill altogether.
If I'd been Bill, I would've said "OK," gone to college on my
father's trust fund, studied whatever the hell *I* wanted to, and
cut them out of my life.
--
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.
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 20, 2011, 1:31:03 PM9/20/11
to
>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either complete
>homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
I don't think that's quite accurate. More to the point, how MANY
>homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
women do you see in the entire book? Bill's stepmother, who is
fairly cool; his stepsister, who is a younger adolescent than he
is and therefore automatically irritating *to him*. Remember
we're seeing all this through Bill's eyes, and at his age he is a
very unreliable narrator when it comes to the opposite sex.
There's a stupid woman aboard the ship that takes them to
Ganymede. There's also a stupid man and a stupid young man Bill's
age. Most of the passengers, of course, Bill doesn't meet at
all.
Once they get to Ganymede, there's the family next door, both
male and female adults and kids intensely practical and sensible.
> Even Peggy gets tarred
>that way.
slightly older male adolescent. Of *course* he thinks she's an
idiot with all the wrong priorities. In his NSHO.
> Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or did he just not know any
>women or just didn't get them.
like most of Heinlein's other juveniles, was written to be
published in _Boy's Life_, the magazine of the Boy Scouts. So
the intended readership consisted almost entirely of little boys
up to *maybe* as old as Bill, more likely younger, to whom girls
were annoying bumps in the road of life, and had cooties. So he
wrote to his audience.
>
>The whole finding alien tech seemed to be a tacked-on after thought which
>ended up going nowhere. What really sucks huge donkey cocks is the book has
>no real ending either.
>Its a complete cop-out.
There is an ending. It's when Bill makes the decision that, in
>The whole finding alien tech seemed to be a tacked-on after thought which
>ended up going nowhere. What really sucks huge donkey cocks is the book has
>no real ending either.
>Its a complete cop-out.
spite of all, he's going to stay on Ganymede, not even go back to
Earth for college. That is a big decision, which will influence
the course of the rest of his life.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 1:20:32 PM9/20/11
to
>OK, I just finished reading "Farmer". ...
characters in _Tunnel in the Sky_ (Rod's sister and the city manager).
But, yeah, while it's a good touch that Molly helped evacuate and hike
with a broken arm, I was not impressed that Mabel the cow is about as
memorable as Molly or Peggy.
>The whole finding alien tech seemed to be a tacked-on after thought
>which ended up going nowhere. What really sucks huge donkey cocks is
>the book has no real ending either. Its a complete cop-out.
Deciding that he's going to stay (while possibly a dumb decision) is
an ending, as much as the protag in _Citizen of the Galaxy_ deciding
to stay at his desk or Samwise saying "I'm home". But I have to agree
this one wasn't that peppy an ending.
The machina ex deus was somewhat out of left field, but as I
mentioned, I liked the effects, showing a sense of wonder mystery, and
kinship among species.
>
>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews. Even
>Peggy gets tarred that way. Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or
>did he just not know any women or just didn't get them.
That's a little unfair in general: there were at least two good female
>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews. Even
>Peggy gets tarred that way. Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or
>did he just not know any women or just didn't get them.
characters in _Tunnel in the Sky_ (Rod's sister and the city manager).
But, yeah, while it's a good touch that Molly helped evacuate and hike
with a broken arm, I was not impressed that Mabel the cow is about as
memorable as Molly or Peggy.
>The whole finding alien tech seemed to be a tacked-on after thought
>which ended up going nowhere. What really sucks huge donkey cocks is
>the book has no real ending either. Its a complete cop-out.
an ending, as much as the protag in _Citizen of the Galaxy_ deciding
to stay at his desk or Samwise saying "I'm home". But I have to agree
this one wasn't that peppy an ending.
The machina ex deus was somewhat out of left field, but as I
mentioned, I liked the effects, showing a sense of wonder mystery, and
kinship among species.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 1:26:40 PM9/20/11
to
In article <8D3eq.391$nO5...@newsfe28.ams2>,
As I recall, the factors when it kicked in were low air pressure, low
gravity, low temperature, and exposure a cold or the like, and they
could have easily tested only two of those on Earth, and not for days
at a time.
The rest looks more like trollery.
Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
>>that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates.
>
>Proves the "medical tests" they all went through were either complete and
>utter shit or not worth the time they took to do.
>Any decent pressure test would have flagged this as an issue long before
>they ever left Earth.
I may be feeding a troll, but whatever: Tests are not 100% accurate.
>
>"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
>>that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates.
>
>Proves the "medical tests" they all went through were either complete and
>utter shit or not worth the time they took to do.
>Any decent pressure test would have flagged this as an issue long before
>they ever left Earth.
As I recall, the factors when it kicked in were low air pressure, low
gravity, low temperature, and exposure a cold or the like, and they
could have easily tested only two of those on Earth, and not for days
at a time.
The rest looks more like trollery.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 1:34:30 PM9/20/11
to
>In article <mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
>>which there has never been found an exception* is that
>>populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
>>supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
>>ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
>>thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
>>the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
>>bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
>>Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
>>think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
>>became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
>
>In "about the time he wrote his big works" is "he" Heinlein
>or Malthus?
Sorry. Malthus, early 1800s. I am not posted on famines in general,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Skip a sentence, then "The basic theorem of population mathematics *to
>>which there has never been found an exception* is that
>>populationincreases always, not merely up to extent of the food
>>supply, but beyond it, to the minimum diet that will sustain life--the
>>ragged edge of starvation. In other words, if we bled off a hundred
>>thousand people a day, the Earth's population would then grow until
>>the increase was around *two* hundred thousand a day, or the
>>bionomical maximum for Earth's new ecological dynamic." The
>>Inevitable Malthusian Catastrophe has been adequately debunked here, I
>>think. Was it James Nicoll who wrote that it's ironic that Malthus
>>became incorrect at about the time he wrote his big works?
>
>In "about the time he wrote his big works" is "he" Heinlein
>or Malthus?
but I have the impression that increasingly famine is political. Even
the Irish potato blight had a political aspect: Ireland exported food
throughout.
>And I probably pointed the Matters of France (where low birth
>rates and a decline in relative but not absolute population
>levels arguably contributed to WWI and WWII)
issue! (Is that the right term for it?)
>and Ireland (where the population has yet, iirc, to rebound to its
>pre- Famine levels).
says that in the Republic, down from 6.5 to 4. I believe there were
major news stories during the Celtic Tiger years when Ireland had net
immigration for the first time in centuries.
Dr. Rufo
Sep 20, 2011, 2:47:37 PM9/20/11
to
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
< snip >
> No, not really; you're missing an important point. This book,
> like most of Heinlein's other juveniles, was written to be
> published in _Boy's Life_, the magazine of the Boy Scouts.
Only two of the Heinlein juveniles, _Farmer in the Sky_ (Aug-Nov 1950)
> like most of Heinlein's other juveniles, was written to be
> published in _Boy's Life_, the magazine of the Boy Scouts.
and _The Rolling Stones_ (Sep-Dec 1952), were serialized in _Boy's Life_
magazine.
Dr. Rufo
Sep 20, 2011, 2:53:27 PM9/20/11
to
previously published in _Boy's Life_ were the two I cited above.
However, there were also two shorts that were published therein as well:
"Nothing Ever Happens on the Moon" Boy's Life, Apr-May 1949
"Tenderfoot in Space" Boy's Life, May-Jul 1958
Thanks.
Larry
Sep 20, 2011, 2:54:26 PM9/20/11
to
In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
> And so there's no guarantee of _another_ Green Revolution after oil
> gets too expensive to use for making fertilizer.
Natural gas is used to make nitrate fertilizer. Phosphate fertilizer is
mined, and suitable deposits are getting scarce. We will run out of
phosphates long before we run out of ammonia.
I always marvel that people who scoff at Malthus seem incapable of following
the news. Four million people starved to death last year. That's an ongoing
holocaust larger than anything in history. Somewhere around 1 billion people
are malnourished, subject to reduced life spans, disease and lack of
productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
than the total insolation. Another green revolution is not going to fix that.
And that's just the hunger part of Malthus.
We have a pretty good set of vaccines, but in another generation, we may no
longer have functioning antibiotics. Access to medical care will become more
difficult as limited resources have to serve more people. Life span is
already dropping in some rural US areas.
The world is already failing life support, and running on the ragged edge of
available food. That is while everything is working fine. The only wars are
minor pissing matches that don't disrupt trade, shipping or agriculture. If
India, Pakistan, Israel or Iran start tossing nukes around, food supply and
transportation would be disrupted. The current 4 million a year dead of
starvation could easily become 400 million a year.
ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
> And so there's no guarantee of _another_ Green Revolution after oil
> gets too expensive to use for making fertilizer.
mined, and suitable deposits are getting scarce. We will run out of
phosphates long before we run out of ammonia.
I always marvel that people who scoff at Malthus seem incapable of following
the news. Four million people starved to death last year. That's an ongoing
holocaust larger than anything in history. Somewhere around 1 billion people
are malnourished, subject to reduced life spans, disease and lack of
productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
than the total insolation. Another green revolution is not going to fix that.
And that's just the hunger part of Malthus.
We have a pretty good set of vaccines, but in another generation, we may no
longer have functioning antibiotics. Access to medical care will become more
difficult as limited resources have to serve more people. Life span is
already dropping in some rural US areas.
The world is already failing life support, and running on the ragged edge of
available food. That is while everything is working fine. The only wars are
minor pissing matches that don't disrupt trade, shipping or agriculture. If
India, Pakistan, Israel or Iran start tossing nukes around, food supply and
transportation would be disrupted. The current 4 million a year dead of
starvation could easily become 400 million a year.
Quadibloc
Sep 20, 2011, 2:56:48 PM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 11:41 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
> trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
> I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
> trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
(Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
The book praises her courage, but presents turning around and going
back at the first sign of trouble as inappropriate (cowardly?) instead
of prudent - and, indeed, *morally obligatory* when innocent life is
at stake.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Sep 20, 2011, 3:05:50 PM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 9:53 am, lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (Trick question -
> answer is none; everybody dies once.)
Perhaps I should have phrased things more clearly. The variable to be
> (Trick question -
> answer is none; everybody dies once.)
minimized is not the number of deaths, per se, but the number of
*untimely* deaths. The number of people who die when they're 10 or 12
or 30 or 50... instead of at 80 or 90 when advancing age finally
brings them beyond the reach of everything medical science can do.
Back at the time when the Americas were colonized, people had fewer
options, because they did not yet have modern technology. Thus, then,
people did have to risk their lives to travel to the Americas, because
of the poverty and crowding of Europe.
But a modern, civilized society has no excuse for allowing things to
decay to the same level again.
Of course, _Farmer in the Sky_ is basically intended as a re-telling
of the early colonization of the Americas with a science-fiction sugar-
coating; thus, this particular criticism of his book actually *is*
unfair in a very important sense.
The book is _not_ intended as advocacy against population control, for
example, or as serious extrapolation of future society. Thus, I'm not
accusing Heinlein of being morally depraved, merely that the
incidental moral inversion that was an unavoidable consequence of the
basic premise dampened my enjoyment of the book. Perhaps if I had
clarified that, some of the responses might have been different.
John Savard
tphile
Sep 20, 2011, 3:06:59 PM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 12:31 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <1w3eq.17422$xz.9...@newsfe09.ams2>,
> In article <1w3eq.17422$xz.9...@newsfe09.ams2>,
Also if you read the juveniles, read also Grumbles From The Grave and
the entries about his writing of them. The severe restrictions of
what he could not write about, especially sex. When dealing with
censorship a writer has to get creative and sneaky about taboo
subjects or else keep away from them. and sometimes thats a good thing.
Bill Snyder
Sep 20, 2011, 3:45:19 PM9/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:26 -0700, Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
>ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
>In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
>ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
>productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
>than the total insolation.
And there are high-rise apartments in NYC which do the same. But if
>than the total insolation.
you're saying that's true for rural and/or agricultural areas, I'd
like to see a cite.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Will in New Haven
Sep 20, 2011, 3:30:47 PM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 11:41 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
> > trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
>
> Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
> (Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
Not for them. To assume that they were monsters for that reason is to
> On Sep 20, 11:41 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
> > trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
>
> Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
> (Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
assume that anyone who reached the new world on a sailing ship with
family in tow was a monster.
>
> The book praises her courage, but presents turning around and going
> back at the first sign of trouble as inappropriate (cowardly?) instead
> of prudent - and, indeed, *morally obligatory* when innocent life is
> at stake.
settlers of a fictional Solar System would be equally squeamish is
extremely foolish.
--
Will in New Haven
Paul Ciszek
Sep 20, 2011, 4:09:42 PM9/20/11
to
In article <0kumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Deciding that he's going to stay (while possibly a dumb decision) is
>an ending, as much as the protag in _Citizen of the Galaxy_ deciding
>to stay at his desk or Samwise saying "I'm home". But I have to agree
>this one wasn't that peppy an ending.
Was staying a bad decision, any more than going out there in the first
>
>Deciding that he's going to stay (while possibly a dumb decision) is
>an ending, as much as the protag in _Citizen of the Galaxy_ deciding
>to stay at his desk or Samwise saying "I'm home". But I have to agree
>this one wasn't that peppy an ending.
place was? He noticed that the list of people who were going back was
not company he would have wished to have been considered part of--people
who probably never should have emmigrated to the frontier in the first
place--and the only reason the family was going back was that his step-
sister couldn't live on Ganymede. He and his father, and I assume his
stepmother as well, figured the disaster that had just happened was the
sort of risk that they signed on for when they decided to homestead.
And that particular disaster was unlikely to happen again, now that the
engineers knew about it.
--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
Paul Ciszek
Sep 20, 2011, 4:28:43 PM9/20/11
to
of an SF serial that (in retrospect) seemed rather Heinleinesque in spirit.
There was a huge generation starship that had *not* forgotten its mission--
so far as I recall, everything still worked pretty much as intended. The
POV character was a boy scout, and his version of the oath went "...to God
and the ship..." rather than God & country. The ship may or may not have
had the root Centaur- in the name. Two events that I remember: Someone had
come untethered during an EVA, and the solution was to shoot an arrow in his
general direction trailing a thread, which could be used to haul a more
substantial rope. (Never mind the problems with this idea for now.) The
other was meeting up with some non-generation travelers, who may have been
frozen as in the Star Trek episode _Space Seed_. Though, come to think
of it, the science bogosity in this story pretty much rules out Heinlein as
a possible author.
Quadibloc
Sep 20, 2011, 4:49:07 PM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 12:54 pm, Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
> I always marvel that people who scoff at Malthus seem incapable of following
> the news.
I don't agree with those who scoff at Malthus. The Earth is finite,
> I always marvel that people who scoff at Malthus seem incapable of following
> the news.
and food production is a mature technology - no Moore's Law for it.
We may get lucky with some kind of genetically-engineered food, but
there are risks there too, even if they are overblown by some. Both
sides in that controversy are so obviously driven by ideology that I
have just thrown up my hands when it comes to figuring out what the
facts are. But even if we do, that's just a temporary fix.
But those who scoff at Malthus _do_ have a point when it comes to
today's news; current famines are always caused by *wars*. No absolute
food shortage - Norman Borlaug *fixed* that. Just bad governments and
terrorists getting in the way.
But I have a response to that too.
How come Timothy McVeigh - or Osama bin Laden - didn't manage to cause
a famine in the United States comparable to the one in Somalia?
There _is_ a problem of world poverty, because poor countries are more
vulnerable to authoritarian governments, corrupt officials,
insurrections, foreign invasions, and other such unpleasantness. If
Somalia had the same per-capita income and educational levels as, say,
the Netherlands, it would very likely have been as peaceful as the
Netherlands.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Sep 20, 2011, 4:54:10 PM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 1:30 pm, Will in New Haven
World, complete with Johnny Appleseed, with science-fiction sugar-
coating, which basically excuses the problem as far as Heinlein is
concerned.
> > The book praises her courage, but presents turning around and going
> > back at the first sign of trouble as inappropriate (cowardly?) instead
> > of prudent - and, indeed, *morally obligatory* when innocent life is
> > at stake.
>
> We have become very squeamish in recent decades. To assume that the
> settlers of a fictional Solar System would be equally squeamish is
> extremely foolish.
Squeamish is very much the wrong word for what I'm talking about.
Squeamishness is when people avoid things that are _not_ morally
wrong, because they're "icky".
John Savard
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
> > (Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
>
> Not for them. To assume that they were monsters for that reason is to
> assume that anyone who reached the new world on a sailing ship with
> family in tow was a monster.
>
As I've noted, the book is a re-telling of the settlement of the New
> On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
> > (Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
>
> Not for them. To assume that they were monsters for that reason is to
> assume that anyone who reached the new world on a sailing ship with
> family in tow was a monster.
>
World, complete with Johnny Appleseed, with science-fiction sugar-
coating, which basically excuses the problem as far as Heinlein is
concerned.
> > The book praises her courage, but presents turning around and going
> > back at the first sign of trouble as inappropriate (cowardly?) instead
> > of prudent - and, indeed, *morally obligatory* when innocent life is
> > at stake.
>
> We have become very squeamish in recent decades. To assume that the
> settlers of a fictional Solar System would be equally squeamish is
> extremely foolish.
Squeamishness is when people avoid things that are _not_ morally
wrong, because they're "icky".
John Savard
Wayne Throop
Sep 20, 2011, 4:51:27 PM9/20/11
to
:: Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
We need raw power! We need... monsters."
--- General W.R. Monger
:: (Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
: Not for them. To assume that they were monsters for that reason is to
: assume that anyone who reached the new world on a sailing ship with
: family in tow was a monster.
"The odds are against us! We need a Hail Mary pass!
: Not for them. To assume that they were monsters for that reason is to
: assume that anyone who reached the new world on a sailing ship with
: family in tow was a monster.
We need raw power! We need... monsters."
--- General W.R. Monger
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 20, 2011, 4:34:22 PM9/20/11
to
>In article <1w3eq.17422$xz....@newsfe09.ams2>,
>Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>OK, I just finished reading "Farmer". ...
>>
>>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews. Even
>>Peggy gets tarred that way. Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or
>>did he just not know any women or just didn't get them.
>
>That's a little unfair in general: there were at least two good female
>characters in _Tunnel in the Sky_ (Rod's sister and the city manager).
>But, yeah, while it's a good touch that Molly helped evacuate and hike
>with a broken arm, I was not impressed that Mabel the cow is about as
>memorable as Molly or Peggy.
I repeat: Heinlein was writing for his target audience, LITTLE
>Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>OK, I just finished reading "Farmer". ...
>>
>>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews. Even
>>Peggy gets tarred that way. Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or
>>did he just not know any women or just didn't get them.
>
>That's a little unfair in general: there were at least two good female
>characters in _Tunnel in the Sky_ (Rod's sister and the city manager).
>But, yeah, while it's a good touch that Molly helped evacuate and hike
>with a broken arm, I was not impressed that Mabel the cow is about as
>memorable as Molly or Peggy.
BOYS for whom girls are not people.
Paul Ciszek
Sep 20, 2011, 5:02:20 PM9/20/11
to
In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
>moral inversion.
>
>The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
>that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates. Obviously, they
>should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
>prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>the first place as a family.
As I recall, there was no indication of a problem until they arrived on
>should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
>prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>the first place as a family.
Ganymede. It was a surprise to everyone, and they weighed going back vs,
accomodating her limitations there. The very fact that there *was*
a pressurized ward at the colony HQ shows that this problem had arisen
before, despire whatever sort of screening the colonists (and astronauts
in general) went through. The situation did not seem hopeless originally;
it was the earthquake and unplanned depressurization that did her in.
Does anyone recall if they had any hope of gradually adapting her to
Ganymede's lower pressure, or alternately, if the plan for Ganymede was
to keep increasing the atmosphere as part of the terraforming? It has
been many years since I read the book.
Paul Ciszek
Sep 20, 2011, 5:24:52 PM9/20/11
to
In article <34rh77punc9636lfn...@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:26 -0700, Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
>>ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>
>
>>productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
>>than the total insolation.
>
>And there are high-rise apartments in NYC which do the same. But if
>you're saying that's true for rural and/or agricultural areas, I'd
>like to see a cite.
Ayup. And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
sources of energy?
Doing some rough calculations with figures provided by Google, I get total
human energy consumption at more than 0.01% of the solar energy absorbed
by the earth (i.e., insolation times 1-albedo). Small for now, but not
as negligible as I would like. Put another way, we are only three orders
of magnitude away from the fate of the Puppeteer homeworld. When you
consider that about half of the people in the world belong to religions
that are actively discouraging birth control...
Konrad Gaertner
Sep 20, 2011, 6:30:03 PM9/20/11
to
Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
> My father had some old _Boy's Life_ issues, one of which had an installment
> of an SF serial that (in retrospect) seemed rather Heinleinesque in spirit.
> There was a huge generation starship that had *not* forgotten its mission--
> so far as I recall, everything still worked pretty much as intended. The
> POV character was a boy scout, and his version of the oath went "...to God
> and the ship..." rather than God & country.
Third Google result for "to God and the ship" is the Feb 1968 Boy's
>
> My father had some old _Boy's Life_ issues, one of which had an installment
> of an SF serial that (in retrospect) seemed rather Heinleinesque in spirit.
> There was a huge generation starship that had *not* forgotten its mission--
> so far as I recall, everything still worked pretty much as intended. The
> POV character was a boy scout, and his version of the oath went "...to God
> and the ship..." rather than God & country.
Life. The story is "Derelict Spaceship" by Dale Colombo.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 6:33:57 PM9/20/11
to
In article <Lru14...@kithrup.com>,
the memories of Anne (his first wife) and his old life, but your
version I hadn't considered and may be more compelling. But against
that I'll note that Bill, even when he was disliking Molly, didn't
even think it.
>That's the other reason George wanted to leave Bill behind;
>because he might someday mention his mother, who wasn't Molly.
I think you're entirely wrong. Mentioning his mother, who had died,
would have been unexceptionable. Mentioning that Molly once worked
for George might be a problem for the reason you indicated, but Bill
was old enough to have that explained to him, and intelligent and nice
enough to have gone along with it.
>Why didn't they leave Peggy behind too? Because, as was pointed out
>in another context when Peggy wanted to do something or other, "Bill
>is a boy and older than you are." It wasn't safe to leave a
>twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth,
When they were thinking of sending her back to Earth, they were
planning to put her in the care of an aunt.
>But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
>your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
>to get away from Bill altogether.
Given Bill's affection for George, and I think George's affection for
Bill, I think that's entirely mean-spirited and even paranoid.
George was an engineer and was thinking of how to provide for Bill and
get him to be a secure engineer too.
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is so
>they can be married to each other without anybody making snarky
>remarks. Molly was George's draftsman.
I had more of an impression that George wanted to just get away from
>OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is so
>they can be married to each other without anybody making snarky
>remarks. Molly was George's draftsman.
the memories of Anne (his first wife) and his old life, but your
version I hadn't considered and may be more compelling. But against
that I'll note that Bill, even when he was disliking Molly, didn't
even think it.
>That's the other reason George wanted to leave Bill behind;
>because he might someday mention his mother, who wasn't Molly.
would have been unexceptionable. Mentioning that Molly once worked
for George might be a problem for the reason you indicated, but Bill
was old enough to have that explained to him, and intelligent and nice
enough to have gone along with it.
>Why didn't they leave Peggy behind too? Because, as was pointed out
>in another context when Peggy wanted to do something or other, "Bill
>is a boy and older than you are." It wasn't safe to leave a
>twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth,
planning to put her in the care of an aunt.
>But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
>your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
>to get away from Bill altogether.
Bill, I think that's entirely mean-spirited and even paranoid.
George was an engineer and was thinking of how to provide for Bill and
get him to be a secure engineer too.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 6:45:12 PM9/20/11
to
In article <j5av0s$pna$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
They were trying: they were lowering the pressure in her room and in
her stretcher, and even let her out for a few minutes ("but she didn't
complain about going back in after 10 minutes" or words to that
effect). Bill eventually concluded that she just didn't belong on
Ganymede, but that may have been retrospective what-iffing.
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Does anyone recall if they had any hope of gradually adapting her to
>Ganymede's lower pressure ... ?
>Does anyone recall if they had any hope of gradually adapting her to
They were trying: they were lowering the pressure in her room and in
her stretcher, and even let her out for a few minutes ("but she didn't
complain about going back in after 10 minutes" or words to that
effect). Bill eventually concluded that she just didn't belong on
Ganymede, but that may have been retrospective what-iffing.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 6:48:35 PM9/20/11
to
In article <carkuq34q9kw.v...@40tude.net>,
Alexey Romanov <alex...@mail.ru> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:01:10 -0500, Tim McDaniel wrote:
>
>> What's worse here is the posited power situation. The fact that
>> people have private helicopters is a pretty good sign of things to
>> come. The ship is revealed to use a total mass-energy conversion
>> drive. More, Ganymede is said to be low on nitrogen, and the best way
>> they've thought of to get more is to transmute oxygen, which has a
>> higher nuclear binding energy than nitrogen! If they have that much
>> power, they could easily make the Earth's deserts bloom.
>
>Is there evidence they didn't do this (and use oceans to full extent,
>etc.) already, and all of that is already being outstripped by the
>population growth?
Not much is said, but what Bill does at the start is go for a hike in
the Sierra Nevadas with his troop, and he says he saw a mountain lion,
which George thought was gone from that area. The one food-production
item mentioned was a new yeast plant in Wyoming and a good harvest --
but that's not Libya being a breadbasket.
And lack of fresh water, nutrients, lights, and heat could make a
*lot* of land surface bloom, albeit with the deserts not being as good
as the American Midwest.
Alexey Romanov <alex...@mail.ru> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:01:10 -0500, Tim McDaniel wrote:
>
>> What's worse here is the posited power situation. The fact that
>> people have private helicopters is a pretty good sign of things to
>> come. The ship is revealed to use a total mass-energy conversion
>> drive. More, Ganymede is said to be low on nitrogen, and the best way
>> they've thought of to get more is to transmute oxygen, which has a
>> higher nuclear binding energy than nitrogen! If they have that much
>> power, they could easily make the Earth's deserts bloom.
>
>Is there evidence they didn't do this (and use oceans to full extent,
>etc.) already, and all of that is already being outstripped by the
>population growth?
Not much is said, but what Bill does at the start is go for a hike in
the Sierra Nevadas with his troop, and he says he saw a mountain lion,
which George thought was gone from that area. The one food-production
item mentioned was a new yeast plant in Wyoming and a good harvest --
but that's not Libya being a breadbasket.
And lack of fresh water, nutrients, lights, and heat could make a
*lot* of land surface bloom, albeit with the deserts not being as good
as the American Midwest.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 6:25:26 PM9/20/11
to
In article <j5aru5$9dh$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
university education.
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <0kumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Deciding that he's going to stay (while possibly a dumb decision) is
>>an ending, as much as the protag in _Citizen of the Galaxy_ deciding
>>to stay at his desk or Samwise saying "I'm home". But I have to agree
>>this one wasn't that peppy an ending.
>
>Was staying a bad decision, any more than going out there in the first
>place was? He noticed that the list of people who were going back was
>not company he would have wished to have been considered part of
I was thinking more of the decision not to go back and get a
>
>In article <0kumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Deciding that he's going to stay (while possibly a dumb decision) is
>>an ending, as much as the protag in _Citizen of the Galaxy_ deciding
>>to stay at his desk or Samwise saying "I'm home". But I have to agree
>>this one wasn't that peppy an ending.
>
>Was staying a bad decision, any more than going out there in the first
>place was? He noticed that the list of people who were going back was
>not company he would have wished to have been considered part of
university education.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 6:28:21 PM9/20/11
to
In article <Lru0n...@kithrup.com>,
are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen novel.
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <1w3eq.17422$xz....@newsfe09.ams2>,
>Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
...
>Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
>Once they get to Ganymede, there's the family next door, both
>male and female adults and kids intensely practical and sensible.
Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and they
>male and female adults and kids intensely practical and sensible.
are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen novel.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 6:43:21 PM9/20/11
to
In article <MPG.28e28100...@news.aioe.org>,
prevents relief efforts. And adjacent northern Kenya, but I think
some aid is getting thru to them.
4 million out of 6+ billion is less than 0.1%. In percentage terms,
that's lower than anything in history. In absolute terms, you're
still wrong: the planned famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s and the
Great Leap Forward in China each killed more people, and even little
Ireland during the potato blight [*] was within a factor of two.
Massive death of starvation is caused by politics.
[*] I suddenly thought of potatoes getting connect to an old data
archive and becoming malevolently sapient. "Beware of the sentient
taters ..."
>Somewhere around 1 billion people are malnourished, subject to
>reduced life spans, disease and lack of productivity.
Five billion, then, are not, and most of them are approximately secure
in their food. That's unprecedentedly large compared to, say, the
Renaissance or before.
>We have a pretty good set of vaccines, but in another generation, we
>may no longer have functioning antibiotics. Access to medical care
>will become more difficult as limited resources have to serve more
>people.
Medical resources can't grow because ...?
>Life span is already dropping in some rural US areas.
http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=4490
"Researchers blame obesity, diabetes and lung disease. People who live
in these communities add another factor: a spike in drug overdose
deaths."
Yeah, they're so poor and starving that they're dying of the effects
of being too fat and using unnecessary addictive drugs. They're dying
of lifestyle diseases.
Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>I always marvel that people who scoff at Malthus seem incapable of
>following the news. Four million people starved to death last
>year. That's an ongoing holocaust larger than anything in history.
The current famine I've heard of is Somalia, where local warlordism
>I always marvel that people who scoff at Malthus seem incapable of
>following the news. Four million people starved to death last
>year. That's an ongoing holocaust larger than anything in history.
prevents relief efforts. And adjacent northern Kenya, but I think
some aid is getting thru to them.
4 million out of 6+ billion is less than 0.1%. In percentage terms,
that's lower than anything in history. In absolute terms, you're
still wrong: the planned famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s and the
Great Leap Forward in China each killed more people, and even little
Ireland during the potato blight [*] was within a factor of two.
Massive death of starvation is caused by politics.
[*] I suddenly thought of potatoes getting connect to an old data
archive and becoming malevolently sapient. "Beware of the sentient
taters ..."
>Somewhere around 1 billion people are malnourished, subject to
>reduced life spans, disease and lack of productivity.
in their food. That's unprecedentedly large compared to, say, the
Renaissance or before.
>We have a pretty good set of vaccines, but in another generation, we
>may no longer have functioning antibiotics. Access to medical care
>will become more difficult as limited resources have to serve more
>people.
>Life span is already dropping in some rural US areas.
"Researchers blame obesity, diabetes and lung disease. People who live
in these communities add another factor: a spike in drug overdose
deaths."
Yeah, they're so poor and starving that they're dying of the effects
of being too fat and using unnecessary addictive drugs. They're dying
of lifestyle diseases.
Bill Snyder
Sep 20, 2011, 7:03:37 PM9/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:24:52 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <34rh77punc9636lfn...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:26 -0700, Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
>>>ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>>
>>
>>>productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
>>>than the total insolation.
>>
>>And there are high-rise apartments in NYC which do the same. But if
>>you're saying that's true for rural and/or agricultural areas, I'd
>>like to see a cite.
>
>Ayup. And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
>sources of energy?
Gotta be total rather than food. My BOTE says one square meter at
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <34rh77punc9636lfn...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:26 -0700, Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
>>>ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>>
>>
>>>productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
>>>than the total insolation.
>>
>>And there are high-rise apartments in NYC which do the same. But if
>>you're saying that's true for rural and/or agricultural areas, I'd
>>like to see a cite.
>
>Ayup. And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
>sources of energy?
the low end of India's average insolation range would provide
around 3500 large calories/day, and I have a strong hunch that a
slum dweller in India doesn't enjoy a 3500-Calorie diet So even
where they're sleeping on the streets and in packing crates, you'd
only get a patch here and a patch there that would qualify.
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems that even
total personal consumption could justify the statement, even in
areas of maximal population density. Best bet would probably be
to define "places" as being steel-mills and glass plants and other
energy-intensive factories.
>Doing some rough calculations with figures provided by Google, I get total
>human energy consumption at more than 0.01% of the solar energy absorbed
>by the earth (i.e., insolation times 1-albedo). Small for now, but not
>as negligible as I would like. Put another way, we are only three orders
>of magnitude away from the fate of the Puppeteer homeworld. When you
>consider that about half of the people in the world belong to religions
>that are actively discouraging birth control...
--
Raymond Daley
Sep 20, 2011, 7:05:35 PM9/20/11
to
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@tmcd-p4-linux.austin.tx.us> wrote in message
news:gvumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
> In article <8D3eq.391$nO5...@newsfe28.ams2>,
> Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
>>>that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates.
>>
>>utter shit or not worth the time they took to do.
>>Any decent pressure test would have flagged this as an issue long before
>>they ever left Earth.
>
> I may be feeding a troll, but whatever: Tests are not 100% accurate.
> As I recall, the factors when it kicked in were low air pressure, low
> gravity, low temperature, and exposure a cold or the like, and they
> could have easily tested only two of those on Earth, and not for days
> at a time.
>
> The rest looks more like trollery.
It wasn't. It was a passionate if somewhat vocifarious opinion that ended
up being rather sweary.
If I want to call a writer a wanker because he forgot something he himself
said earlier in the very same book I have that right.
Be thankful I didn't call him a cunt. I was close though. I can be quite
passionate in my vehemance. I blame my Irish roots.
Raymond Daley
Sep 20, 2011, 7:26:56 PM9/20/11
to
"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j5av0s$pna$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Does anyone recall if they had any hope of gradually adapting her to
> Ganymede's lower pressure, or alternately, if the plan for Ganymede was
> to keep increasing the atmosphere as part of the terraforming? It has
> been many years since I read the book.
Seeing as I was the guy who read it today in 1 go I'll field that.
> Ganymede's lower pressure, or alternately, if the plan for Ganymede was
> to keep increasing the atmosphere as part of the terraforming? It has
> been many years since I read the book.
After her time in hospital they initially make a pressurised room at the
family home, dad then buys a surplus spacesuit or parts of same so Peggy can
at least get outside and get some sunshine.
It does appears they are gradually reducing the pressure in her room at home
to try and get her aclimated to Ganymede.
She only dies due to rapid explosive decompression or being crushed by the
house during a planet quake. It isn't exactly clear about the death.
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 20, 2011, 7:05:26 PM9/20/11
to
In article <lvgnk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I think
George's initial plan was to get away from *everybody* who
remembered Anne ever existed and might possibly, however
unlikely, blab. He may have realized that that was an unworthy
idea, which would explain his later turning around and putting in
an application for Bill.
Raymond Daley
Sep 20, 2011, 7:48:30 PM9/20/11
to
"Dorothy J Heydt" wrote
> Quadibloc wrote:
>>The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
>>moral inversion.
>>The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
>>moral inversion.
>>The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
>>that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates. Obviously, they
>>should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
>>prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>>the first place as a family.
>>should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
>>prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
>>the first place as a family.
> I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
> trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
Nope, she's sick pretty much from day 1 of them landing there. Even semi
> trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
competant medical tests would have red flagged her as a no-go.
> It wasn't safe to leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth
soons turn tail on even that idea when Molly points out Peggy could have
been left on earth with her sister.
Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have dementia or
early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a writer he was
incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what ground work he'd
already established. I've already called him a wanker for his lack of logic
about the medical tests.
I was initially going to call him a cunt, but deleted that deciding I was
being too harsh. Now you've thrown up this issue as well he more than earns
that label as well.
He's got me passionately disliking him for his laziness now.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sep 20, 2011, 8:04:59 PM9/20/11
to
On 9/20/11 4:34 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<0kumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
> Tim McDaniel<tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article<1w3eq.17422$xz....@newsfe09.ams2>,
>> Raymond Daley<raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> OK, I just finished reading "Farmer". ...
>>>
>>> As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>>> complete homebodies& babymakers or total man hating shrews. Even
> In article<0kumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
> Tim McDaniel<tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article<1w3eq.17422$xz....@newsfe09.ams2>,
>> Raymond Daley<raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> OK, I just finished reading "Farmer". ...
>>>
>>> As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
>>> Peggy gets tarred that way. Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or
>>> did he just not know any women or just didn't get them.
>>
>> That's a little unfair in general: there were at least two good female
>> characters in _Tunnel in the Sky_ (Rod's sister and the city manager).
>> But, yeah, while it's a good touch that Molly helped evacuate and hike
>> with a broken arm, I was not impressed that Mabel the cow is about as
>> memorable as Molly or Peggy.
>
> I repeat: Heinlein was writing for his target audience, LITTLE
> BOYS for whom girls are not people.
>
Preteen and teen boys, for whom girls are indeed people. You may allow
>>> did he just not know any women or just didn't get them.
>>
>> That's a little unfair in general: there were at least two good female
>> characters in _Tunnel in the Sky_ (Rod's sister and the city manager).
>> But, yeah, while it's a good touch that Molly helped evacuate and hike
>> with a broken arm, I was not impressed that Mabel the cow is about as
>> memorable as Molly or Peggy.
>
> I repeat: Heinlein was writing for his target audience, LITTLE
> BOYS for whom girls are not people.
>
yourself to speak for your entire gender, don't speak for mine.
I liked girls FAR better than boys. Girls never tried to beat me up,
rarely insulted me, and appreciated the stupid things I did more.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Wayne Throop
Sep 20, 2011, 8:36:28 PM9/20/11
to
:::: There are actually areas in India that consume more calories than
:::: the total insolation.
:: And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
:: sources of energy?
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: Gotta be total rather than food. My BOTE says one square meter at the
is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar energy.
:::: the total insolation.
:: And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
:: sources of energy?
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: Gotta be total rather than food. My BOTE says one square meter at the
: low end of India's average insolation range would provide around 3500
: large calories/day, and I have a strong hunch that a slum dweller in
: India doesn't enjoy a 3500-Calorie diet So even where they're sleeping
: on the streets and in packing crates, you'd only get a patch here and
: a patch there that would qualify.
Well, *might* still mean insolation-converted-to-food, since foot
: large calories/day, and I have a strong hunch that a slum dweller in
: India doesn't enjoy a 3500-Calorie diet So even where they're sleeping
: on the streets and in packing crates, you'd only get a patch here and
: a patch there that would qualify.
is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar energy.
Walter Bushell
Sep 20, 2011, 9:42:58 PM9/20/11
to
In article <5lgnk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
study ballet, theoretical physics or abstract coverings of locally
Euclidean spaces bogemoi. All the professions are imported from Earth,
although perhaps preference would be granted to people who had been
there and returned to Earth for training
--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and they
> are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen novel.
That's what you do on a pioneer planet. You don't go there to paint or
> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and they
> are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen novel.
study ballet, theoretical physics or abstract coverings of locally
Euclidean spaces bogemoi. All the professions are imported from Earth,
although perhaps preference would be granted to people who had been
there and returned to Earth for training
--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
Walter Bushell
Sep 20, 2011, 9:50:06 PM9/20/11
to
In article
<cd219a56-ca33-44e6...@h7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
exceed the ability of the Earth to radiate the energy at livable
temperatures, even if we get total conversion. Oh, yes and the energy
that is going to be needed for desalinization.
<cd219a56-ca33-44e6...@h7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> I don't agree with those who scoff at Malthus. The Earth is finite,
> and food production is a mature technology - no Moore's Law for it.
>
> We may get lucky with some kind of genetically-engineered food, but
> there are risks there too, even if they are overblown by some. Both
> sides in that controversy are so obviously driven by ideology that I
> have just thrown up my hands when it comes to figuring out what the
> facts are. But even if we do, that's just a temporary fix.
At some population point the calories needed for food production will
> I don't agree with those who scoff at Malthus. The Earth is finite,
> and food production is a mature technology - no Moore's Law for it.
>
> We may get lucky with some kind of genetically-engineered food, but
> there are risks there too, even if they are overblown by some. Both
> sides in that controversy are so obviously driven by ideology that I
> have just thrown up my hands when it comes to figuring out what the
> facts are. But even if we do, that's just a temporary fix.
exceed the ability of the Earth to radiate the energy at livable
temperatures, even if we get total conversion. Oh, yes and the energy
that is going to be needed for desalinization.
Walter Bushell
Sep 20, 2011, 9:54:12 PM9/20/11
to
In article <9hhnk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
eating most white flour products sweetened with sugar (mainly HFCS) and
polyunsaturated fats.
That's a killer diet.
tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> >Life span is already dropping in some rural US areas.
>
> http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=4490
> "Researchers blame obesity, diabetes and lung disease. People who live
> in these communities add another factor: a spike in drug overdose
> deaths."
>
> Yeah, they're so poor and starving that they're dying of the effects
> of being too fat and using unnecessary addictive drugs. They're dying
> of lifestyle diseases.
Hey, high carb diet as recommended is cheap, although the poor are
> >Life span is already dropping in some rural US areas.
>
> http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=4490
> "Researchers blame obesity, diabetes and lung disease. People who live
> in these communities add another factor: a spike in drug overdose
> deaths."
>
> Yeah, they're so poor and starving that they're dying of the effects
> of being too fat and using unnecessary addictive drugs. They're dying
> of lifestyle diseases.
eating most white flour products sweetened with sugar (mainly HFCS) and
polyunsaturated fats.
That's a killer diet.
Bill Snyder
Sep 20, 2011, 10:20:05 PM9/20/11
to
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:36:28 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
wrote:
But by that standard, it wouldn't be "areas in India," but every
city in every country. Maybe suburbs, too -- think you could
raise enough on the average suburban lot to keep the average
suburban family alive? I'm inclined to doubt it, but don't know
enough about yields to have a strong opinion.
tphile
Sep 20, 2011, 10:23:14 PM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 5:28 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <Lru0nr....@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1w3eq.17422$xz.9...@newsfe09.ams2>,
Calling Gretchen and her mom "complete homebodies" is totally
misleading and inaccurate. Gretchen was admired for her farming and
homesteading skills which is critical for survival. and her mom for
her cooking skills and being the master of the kitchen. They weren't
the helpless, faint hearted damsel in distress trophy type women.
That is an asset when pioneering a homestead. So is making babies
> In article <Lru0nr....@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1w3eq.17422$xz.9...@newsfe09.ams2>,
> >Raymond Daley <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
> >>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
> ...
> >Once they get to Ganymede, there's the family next door, both
> >male and female adults and kids intensely practical and sensible.
>
> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and they
> are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen novel.
>
> --
> Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: t...@panix.com
> >>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
> >>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
> ...
> >Once they get to Ganymede, there's the family next door, both
> >male and female adults and kids intensely practical and sensible.
>
> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and they
> are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen novel.
>
> --
Calling Gretchen and her mom "complete homebodies" is totally
misleading and inaccurate. Gretchen was admired for her farming and
homesteading skills which is critical for survival. and her mom for
her cooking skills and being the master of the kitchen. They weren't
the helpless, faint hearted damsel in distress trophy type women.
That is an asset when pioneering a homestead. So is making babies
James Nicoll
Sep 20, 2011, 11:35:01 PM9/20/11
to
In article <j5b0b4$qfa$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
--
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)
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <34rh77punc9636lfn...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:26 -0700, Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
>>>ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>>
>>
>>>productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
>>>than the total insolation.
>>
>>And there are high-rise apartments in NYC which do the same. But if
>>you're saying that's true for rural and/or agricultural areas, I'd
>>like to see a cite.
>
>Ayup. And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
>sources of energy?
>
>Doing some rough calculations with figures provided by Google, I get total
>human energy consumption at more than 0.01% of the solar energy absorbed
>by the earth (i.e., insolation times 1-albedo). Small for now, but not
>as negligible as I would like. Put another way, we are only three orders
>of magnitude away from the fate of the Puppeteer homeworld. When you
>consider that about half of the people in the world belong to religions
>that are actively discouraging birth control...
Unsuccessfully, for the most part.
>
>In article <34rh77punc9636lfn...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:26 -0700, Larry <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-
>>>ab79fc...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>>
>>
>>>productivity. There are actually areas in India that consume more calories
>>>than the total insolation.
>>
>>And there are high-rise apartments in NYC which do the same. But if
>>you're saying that's true for rural and/or agricultural areas, I'd
>>like to see a cite.
>
>Ayup. And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
>sources of energy?
>
>Doing some rough calculations with figures provided by Google, I get total
>human energy consumption at more than 0.01% of the solar energy absorbed
>by the earth (i.e., insolation times 1-albedo). Small for now, but not
>as negligible as I would like. Put another way, we are only three orders
>of magnitude away from the fate of the Puppeteer homeworld. When you
>consider that about half of the people in the world belong to religions
>that are actively discouraging birth control...
--
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
Sep 20, 2011, 11:37:00 PM9/20/11
to
In article <83ii77tfb8eishs8a...@4ax.com>,
scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
population bomb rhetorical gambit.
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:36:28 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>>:::: There are actually areas in India that consume more calories than
>>:::: the total insolation.
>>
>>:: And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
>>:: sources of energy?
>>
>>: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>>: Gotta be total rather than food. My BOTE says one square meter at the
>>: low end of India's average insolation range would provide around 3500
>>: large calories/day, and I have a strong hunch that a slum dweller in
>>: India doesn't enjoy a 3500-Calorie diet So even where they're sleeping
>>: on the streets and in packing crates, you'd only get a patch here and
>>: a patch there that would qualify.
>>
>>Well, *might* still mean insolation-converted-to-food, since foot
>>is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar energy.
>
>But by that standard, it wouldn't be "areas in India," but every
>city in every country.
Framing the conversation in terms of teeming hordes of brown people,
>On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:36:28 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>>:::: There are actually areas in India that consume more calories than
>>:::: the total insolation.
>>
>>:: And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
>>:: sources of energy?
>>
>>: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>>: Gotta be total rather than food. My BOTE says one square meter at the
>>: low end of India's average insolation range would provide around 3500
>>: large calories/day, and I have a strong hunch that a slum dweller in
>>: India doesn't enjoy a 3500-Calorie diet So even where they're sleeping
>>: on the streets and in packing crates, you'd only get a patch here and
>>: a patch there that would qualify.
>>
>>Well, *might* still mean insolation-converted-to-food, since foot
>>is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar energy.
>
>But by that standard, it wouldn't be "areas in India," but every
>city in every country.
scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
population bomb rhetorical gambit.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 11:25:22 PM9/20/11
to
In article <8%8eq.5731$4X4....@newsfe27.ams2>,
construction. Medical tests today are not 100% perfect, and I doubt
that they'll be so in the future.
Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@tmcd-p4-linux.austin.tx.us> wrote in message
>news:gvumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
>
>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@tmcd-p4-linux.austin.tx.us> wrote in message
>news:gvumk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
>> The rest looks more like trollery.
>
>It wasn't. It was a passionate if somewhat vocifarious opinion that ended
>up being rather sweary.
>If I want to call a writer a wanker because he forgot something he himself
>said earlier in the very same book I have that right.
You're swearing at Heinlein due to a nonsensical straw man of your own
>
>It wasn't. It was a passionate if somewhat vocifarious opinion that ended
>up being rather sweary.
>If I want to call a writer a wanker because he forgot something he himself
>said earlier in the very same book I have that right.
construction. Medical tests today are not 100% perfect, and I doubt
that they'll be so in the future.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 11:23:15 PM9/20/11
to
In article <proto-56155C....@news.panix.com>,
pioneer planet. I guess this is Planet Stereotype, where the women
are required to stay home and the men are required to do everything
outside. That's a stereotype of the 19th C.
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <5lgnk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
> tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and
>> they are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
>> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
>> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen
>> novel.
>
>That's what you do on a pioneer planet.
Funny, I doubt that you'd indeed expect male *me* to do that on a
>In article <5lgnk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
> tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and
>> they are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
>> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
>> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen
>> novel.
>
>That's what you do on a pioneer planet.
pioneer planet. I guess this is Planet Stereotype, where the women
are required to stay home and the men are required to do everything
outside. That's a stereotype of the 19th C.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 11:40:03 PM9/20/11
to
In article <mD9eq.4325$4%.919@newsfe18.ams2>,
are making a silly extrapolation.
>> It wasn't safe to leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth
>
>Demonstrating how quickly he forgets what he wrote (yet again)
>Heinlein soons turn tail on even that idea when Molly points out
>Peggy could have been left on earth with her sister.
Would a mother really like to colonize at the price of abandoning her
child on her sister?
That alternative is considered only on Ganymede when they realized
what a cul-de-sac they were in, when they had a choice between
- keeping Peggy on Ganymede and seeing her either
= likely trapped in windowless pressurized rooms for the rest of her
life
= dying young
- sending Peggy back ... except with each person refusing to go back
without some other person, they'd all have to go back together
and abandon all their work and hope, to be left penniless on a
starving Earth?
(Peggy was a emotional blackmailer, but then again, she was 12 years
old and facing abandonment by her immediate family.)
>Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have
>dementia or early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a
>writer he was incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what
>ground work he'd already established.
I've got better things to do than read a raving loony.
Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Nope, she's sick pretty much from day 1 of them landing there. Even
>semi competant medical tests would have red flagged her as a no-go.
Since we know nothing of Nth century space colonization medicine, you
>Nope, she's sick pretty much from day 1 of them landing there. Even
>semi competant medical tests would have red flagged her as a no-go.
are making a silly extrapolation.
>> It wasn't safe to leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth
>
>Demonstrating how quickly he forgets what he wrote (yet again)
>Heinlein soons turn tail on even that idea when Molly points out
>Peggy could have been left on earth with her sister.
child on her sister?
That alternative is considered only on Ganymede when they realized
what a cul-de-sac they were in, when they had a choice between
- keeping Peggy on Ganymede and seeing her either
= likely trapped in windowless pressurized rooms for the rest of her
life
= dying young
- sending Peggy back ... except with each person refusing to go back
without some other person, they'd all have to go back together
and abandon all their work and hope, to be left penniless on a
starving Earth?
(Peggy was a emotional blackmailer, but then again, she was 12 years
old and facing abandonment by her immediate family.)
>Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have
>dementia or early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a
>writer he was incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what
>ground work he'd already established.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 20, 2011, 11:31:01 PM9/20/11
to
In article <LruG5...@kithrup.com>,
reasonable, decent, hard-working, and otherwise virtuous, you'd prefer
to believe that he was trying to abandon his son, instead of trying to
protect his son and look out for his son's future? What a very
deplorable interpretation.
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I think
>George's initial plan was to get away from *everybody* who
>remembered Anne ever existed and might possibly, however
>unlikely, blab. He may have realized that that was an unworthy
>idea, which would explain his later turning around and putting in
>an application for Bill.
In interpreting a character who is everywhere else shown to be
>You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I think
>George's initial plan was to get away from *everybody* who
>remembered Anne ever existed and might possibly, however
>unlikely, blab. He may have realized that that was an unworthy
>idea, which would explain his later turning around and putting in
>an application for Bill.
reasonable, decent, hard-working, and otherwise virtuous, you'd prefer
to believe that he was trying to abandon his son, instead of trying to
protect his son and look out for his son's future? What a very
deplorable interpretation.
Kay Shapero
Sep 21, 2011, 12:38:18 AM9/21/11
to
In article <j5bm4r$2ll$3...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...
thing as racial paranoia?
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)
>
> In article <83ii77tfb8eishs8a...@4ax.com>,
> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:36:28 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>:::: There are actually areas in India that consume more calories than
> >>:::: the total insolation.
> >>
> >>:: And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
> >>:: sources of energy?
> >>
> >>: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
> >>: Gotta be total rather than food. My BOTE says one square meter at the
> >>: low end of India's average insolation range would provide around 3500
> >>: large calories/day, and I have a strong hunch that a slum dweller in
> >>: India doesn't enjoy a 3500-Calorie diet So even where they're sleeping
> >>: on the streets and in packing crates, you'd only get a patch here and
> >>: a patch there that would qualify.
> >>
> >>Well, *might* still mean insolation-converted-to-food, since foot
> >>is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar energy.
> >
> >But by that standard, it wouldn't be "areas in India," but every
> >city in every country.
>
> Framing the conversation in terms of teeming hordes of brown people,
> scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
> population bomb rhetorical gambit.
On both sides of the fence - what easier way to just dismiss the whole
> In article <83ii77tfb8eishs8a...@4ax.com>,
> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:36:28 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>:::: There are actually areas in India that consume more calories than
> >>:::: the total insolation.
> >>
> >>:: And does he mean more *food* calories, or total food and other
> >>:: sources of energy?
> >>
> >>: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
> >>: Gotta be total rather than food. My BOTE says one square meter at the
> >>: low end of India's average insolation range would provide around 3500
> >>: large calories/day, and I have a strong hunch that a slum dweller in
> >>: India doesn't enjoy a 3500-Calorie diet So even where they're sleeping
> >>: on the streets and in packing crates, you'd only get a patch here and
> >>: a patch there that would qualify.
> >>
> >>Well, *might* still mean insolation-converted-to-food, since foot
> >>is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar energy.
> >
> >But by that standard, it wouldn't be "areas in India," but every
> >city in every country.
>
> Framing the conversation in terms of teeming hordes of brown people,
> scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
> population bomb rhetorical gambit.
thing as racial paranoia?
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)
Derek Lyons
Sep 21, 2011, 12:51:07 AM9/21/11
to
_Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
teenage years.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
Sep 21, 2011, 12:58:02 AM9/21/11
to
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>But by that standard, it wouldn't be "areas in India," but every
>city in every country. Maybe suburbs, too -- think you could
>raise enough on the average suburban lot to keep the average
>suburban family alive?
Not even close.
>But by that standard, it wouldn't be "areas in India," but every
>city in every country. Maybe suburbs, too -- think you could
>raise enough on the average suburban lot to keep the average
>suburban family alive?
Tim McDaniel
Sep 21, 2011, 1:08:00 AM9/21/11
to
In article <4e796bcb....@news.supernews.com>,
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill does note that, with a good university education, he'd be able to
write his own ticket. He was cook on the exploration expedition
because he didn't have any other useful skills. So if he wanted to go
to the Callisto project, or the new power stations, or work for the
government in engineering, he would have found a degree very useful
... but if he doesn't want that goal, and given that he can farm, he's
not so unreasonable.
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>>I was thinking more of the decision not to go back and get a
>>university education.
>
>As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
>_Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
>But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as
>my teenage years.
Hmm, an excellent point. Thank you. I stand corrected.
>>I was thinking more of the decision not to go back and get a
>>university education.
>
>As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
>_Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
>But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as
>my teenage years.
Bill does note that, with a good university education, he'd be able to
write his own ticket. He was cook on the exploration expedition
because he didn't have any other useful skills. So if he wanted to go
to the Callisto project, or the new power stations, or work for the
government in engineering, he would have found a degree very useful
... but if he doesn't want that goal, and given that he can farm, he's
not so unreasonable.
michael
Sep 21, 2011, 1:17:46 AM9/21/11
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:50:55 +0100, "Raymond Daley"
<raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either complete
>homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews. Even Peggy gets tarred
<raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either complete
>that way. Was Heinlein that much of a sexist or did he just not know any
>women or just didn't get them.
Heinlein wrote quite a number of strong female characters that played
>women or just didn't get them.
significant roles. Betty Sorenson (The Star Beast) was clearly the
sharper of the lead characters. In Have Space Suit Will Travel,
Peewee was young, but brilliant - and absolutely determined. Star
(Glory Road) was anything but weak and apparently didn't hate men.
There were lots of strong female characters in Stranger in a Strange
Land, Time Enough for Love, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Mart van de Wege
Sep 21, 2011, 1:23:21 AM9/21/11
to
"Raymond Daley" <raymon...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> "Dorothy J Heydt" wrote
<snip>
For the record: I concur. Heinlein is IMO a barely competent pulp
writer, whose plots are full of inconsistencies or barely considered
unfortunate implications.
Yes, that means I agree with Verhoeven, for example. Starship Troopers'
basic idea *sounds* like a paean to meritocracy, but on closer analysis
the message is "The only people that count are those that do or have
done service to the State", which *is* naked fascism. Verhoeven saw
that, ran with it and parodied it, and look how he got crucified.
And now you picked another nice example of internal inconsistencies that
a better writer just would have handled better, not just hand-waved
away, and because you attack the Holy Heinlein (blessed be his name)
using some inappropriate language, you get branded a troll.
Be proud of that badge. You earned it.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
> "Dorothy J Heydt" wrote
<snip>
>> It wasn't safe to leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth
>
> Demonstrating how quickly he forgets what he wrote (yet again) Heinlein
> soons turn tail on even that idea when Molly points out Peggy could have
> been left on earth with her sister.
> Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have dementia or
> early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a writer he was
> incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what ground work he'd
> already established. I've already called him a wanker for his lack of logic
> about the medical tests.
>
> I was initially going to call him a cunt, but deleted that deciding I was
> being too harsh. Now you've thrown up this issue as well he more than earns
> that label as well.
>
> He's got me passionately disliking him for his laziness now.
>
Now you've gone and done it. The fanbois are going to crucify you.
>
> Demonstrating how quickly he forgets what he wrote (yet again) Heinlein
> soons turn tail on even that idea when Molly points out Peggy could have
> been left on earth with her sister.
> Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have dementia or
> early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a writer he was
> incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what ground work he'd
> already established. I've already called him a wanker for his lack of logic
> about the medical tests.
>
> I was initially going to call him a cunt, but deleted that deciding I was
> being too harsh. Now you've thrown up this issue as well he more than earns
> that label as well.
>
> He's got me passionately disliking him for his laziness now.
>
For the record: I concur. Heinlein is IMO a barely competent pulp
writer, whose plots are full of inconsistencies or barely considered
unfortunate implications.
Yes, that means I agree with Verhoeven, for example. Starship Troopers'
basic idea *sounds* like a paean to meritocracy, but on closer analysis
the message is "The only people that count are those that do or have
done service to the State", which *is* naked fascism. Verhoeven saw
that, ran with it and parodied it, and look how he got crucified.
And now you picked another nice example of internal inconsistencies that
a better writer just would have handled better, not just hand-waved
away, and because you attack the Holy Heinlein (blessed be his name)
using some inappropriate language, you get branded a troll.
Be proud of that badge. You earned it.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Mart van de Wege
Sep 21, 2011, 1:26:42 AM9/21/11
to
Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:11 +0100, "Raymond Daley"
> <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
>>> This was among my favorite Heinleins.
>>
>>I've got it but I've never read it. I'll try to make time fairly soon and
>>then come back with an opinion.
>>
>>I'm just looking at his other stuff that I know I've read.
>>
>>Have Spacesuit Will Travel - 1st read aged 9, loved it. Spent 25yrs trying
>>to find another copy. I liked it that much. It deserves to be a movie
>
> I used to think that (especially with my dream casting of John Goodman
> and Harry Dean Stanton as Jock and Tim), but now I'd hate to see what
> happened to Starship Troopers happen to a Heinlein novel I actually
> care about.
>
What, it also has a glaring inconsistency between its professed message
and the actual practice as described?
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:54:11 +0100, "Raymond Daley"
> <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:mb1mk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us...
>>> This was among my favorite Heinleins.
>>
>>I've got it but I've never read it. I'll try to make time fairly soon and
>>then come back with an opinion.
>>
>>I'm just looking at his other stuff that I know I've read.
>>
>>Have Spacesuit Will Travel - 1st read aged 9, loved it. Spent 25yrs trying
>>to find another copy. I liked it that much. It deserves to be a movie
>
> I used to think that (especially with my dream casting of John Goodman
> and Harry Dean Stanton as Jock and Tim), but now I'd hate to see what
> happened to Starship Troopers happen to a Heinlein novel I actually
> care about.
>
What, it also has a glaring inconsistency between its professed message
and the actual practice as described?
Ahasuerus
Sep 21, 2011, 1:52:37 AM9/21/11
to
On Sep 20, 6:30 pm, Konrad Gaertner <kgaert...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
> > My father had some old _Boy's Life_ issues, one of which had an installment
> > of an SF serial that (in retrospect) seemed rather Heinleinesque in spirit.
> > There was a huge generation starship that had *not* forgotten its mission--
> > so far as I recall, everything still worked pretty much as intended. The
> > POV character was a boy scout, and his version of the oath went "...to God
> > and the ship..." rather than God & country.
>
> Third Google result for "to God and the ship" is the Feb 1968 Boy's
> Life. The story is "Derelict Spaceship" by Dale Colombo.
BTW, it was part 4 of the "Ed Linden, the Space Scout" series -- see
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?120011 for details.
According to a blurb in _Boys' Life_, October 1965, "Dale Colombo is
the pen name which a pair of well-known authors use for the Boys' Life
space-travel stories they write together. Both are veteran Scout
leaders, and one is connected with a leading aerospace company deeply
involved in long-range U.S. government programs for planetary
exploration. Under other names these writers contribute articles and
fiction to many national magazines."
> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
> > My father had some old _Boy's Life_ issues, one of which had an installment
> > of an SF serial that (in retrospect) seemed rather Heinleinesque in spirit.
> > There was a huge generation starship that had *not* forgotten its mission--
> > so far as I recall, everything still worked pretty much as intended. The
> > POV character was a boy scout, and his version of the oath went "...to God
> > and the ship..." rather than God & country.
>
> Third Google result for "to God and the ship" is the Feb 1968 Boy's
> Life. The story is "Derelict Spaceship" by Dale Colombo.
BTW, it was part 4 of the "Ed Linden, the Space Scout" series -- see
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?120011 for details.
According to a blurb in _Boys' Life_, October 1965, "Dale Colombo is
the pen name which a pair of well-known authors use for the Boys' Life
space-travel stories they write together. Both are veteran Scout
leaders, and one is connected with a leading aerospace company deeply
involved in long-range U.S. government programs for planetary
exploration. Under other names these writers contribute articles and
fiction to many national magazines."
Brian M. Scott
Sep 21, 2011, 2:05:40 AM9/21/11
to
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:36:28 GMT, Wayne Throop
<thr...@sheol.org> wrote in <news:13165...@sheol.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Well, *might* still mean insolation-converted-to-food,
> since foot is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar
> energy.
*Easily* the best typo of the month so far!
Brian
<thr...@sheol.org> wrote in <news:13165...@sheol.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Well, *might* still mean insolation-converted-to-food,
> since foot is a remarkably inefficient way to store solar
> energy.
Brian
Paul Ciszek
Sep 21, 2011, 3:25:44 AM9/21/11
to
In article <4E7913EB...@tx.rr.com>,
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>
>> My father had some old _Boy's Life_ issues, one of which had an installment
>> of an SF serial that (in retrospect) seemed rather Heinleinesque in spirit.
>> There was a huge generation starship that had *not* forgotten its mission--
>> so far as I recall, everything still worked pretty much as intended. The
>> POV character was a boy scout, and his version of the oath went "...to God
>> and the ship..." rather than God & country.
>
>Third Google result for "to God and the ship" is the Feb 1968 Boy's
>Life. The story is "Derelict Spaceship" by Dale Colombo.
Thank you.
--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
djinn
Sep 21, 2011, 5:18:42 AM9/21/11
to
On Sep 21, 1:23 pm, Mart van de Wege <mvdw...@mail.com> wrote:
Not bad, by my count 46 messages to reach "Heinlein was a fascist".
That seems a fairly high number.
That seems a fairly high number.
djinn
Sep 21, 2011, 5:38:12 AM9/21/11
to
On Sep 21, 1:41 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-ab79fc5eb...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> nothing to do with the kids. (Pause to get out the book and
> check names.)
>
> OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is
> so they can be married to each other without anybody making
> snarky remarks. Molly was George's draftsman. If they'd married
> and stayed on Earth, everybody would have said, "Oh, another
> secretary** who schemed and plotted till she married the boss.
> Ha ha." On Ganymede, there would be *nobody* who knew that Molly
> had once worked for George, and her reputation would be safe.
>
> That's the other reason George wanted to leave Bill behind;
> because he might someday mention his mother, who wasn't Molly.
>
> Why didn't they leave Peggy behind too? Because, as was pointed
> out in another context when Peggy wanted to do something or
> other, "Bill is a boy and older than you are." It wasn't safe to
> leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth, but it was okay to
> leave a boy of sixteen or seventeen, almost ready to go off to
> college. But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
> your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
> to get away from Bill altogether.
>
> If I'd been Bill, I would've said "OK," gone to college on my
> father's trust fund, studied whatever the hell *I* wanted to, and
> cut them out of my life.
>
I tend to agree with you. George just dumped the decision on Bill
without any warning, and obviously intended not to give him time to
think about it. It seemed pretty raw when I read it as a kid and
really cold when I read it as adult.
I kinda think Bill should have taken the deal, but then there'd be a
different story.
However, since Bill had learned to take care of his father and himself
- by doing the cooking and cleaning, household accounting - as well a
Scout leader, he was fairly well prepared to be self reliant on a
frontier. Especially with George forcing emotional detachment on him.
> In article <2182f214-eaf8-4d3e-b6de-ab79fc5eb...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
> >moral inversion.
>
> >The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
> >that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates. Obviously, they
> >should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
> >prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
> >the first place as a family.
>
> I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
> trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
>
> Meanwhile, the reason the adults were going to Ganymede had
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >The problem I have with "Farmer in the Sky" is that it contains a
> >moral inversion.
>
> >The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
> >that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates. Obviously, they
> >should have given up and gone back to Earth before that happened, to
> >prevent it from happening, or they were foolish to go to Ganymede in
> >the first place as a family.
>
> I didn't get the impression that they knew Peggy had respiratory
> trouble until they'd been on Ganymede for a while.
>
> nothing to do with the kids. (Pause to get out the book and
> check names.)
>
> OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is
> so they can be married to each other without anybody making
> snarky remarks. Molly was George's draftsman. If they'd married
> and stayed on Earth, everybody would have said, "Oh, another
> secretary** who schemed and plotted till she married the boss.
> Ha ha." On Ganymede, there would be *nobody* who knew that Molly
> had once worked for George, and her reputation would be safe.
>
> That's the other reason George wanted to leave Bill behind;
> because he might someday mention his mother, who wasn't Molly.
>
> Why didn't they leave Peggy behind too? Because, as was pointed
> out in another context when Peggy wanted to do something or
> other, "Bill is a boy and older than you are." It wasn't safe to
> leave a twelve-year-old GIRL alone on Earth, but it was okay to
> leave a boy of sixteen or seventeen, almost ready to go off to
> college. But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
> your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
> to get away from Bill altogether.
>
> If I'd been Bill, I would've said "OK," gone to college on my
> father's trust fund, studied whatever the hell *I* wanted to, and
> cut them out of my life.
>
I tend to agree with you. George just dumped the decision on Bill
without any warning, and obviously intended not to give him time to
think about it. It seemed pretty raw when I read it as a kid and
really cold when I read it as adult.
I kinda think Bill should have taken the deal, but then there'd be a
different story.
However, since Bill had learned to take care of his father and himself
- by doing the cooking and cleaning, household accounting - as well a
Scout leader, he was fairly well prepared to be self reliant on a
frontier. Especially with George forcing emotional detachment on him.
Mart van de Wege
Sep 21, 2011, 7:12:34 AM9/21/11
to
<snip>
I did nowhere state that Heinlein was a fascist.
I did state that Heinlein obviously hadn't considered the implications
of his envisioned society in 'Starship Troopers', and that anyone who
concludes that that society is fascist has a very good point.
That is not the same at all. Unless of course you want to argue that
Heinlein is *not* such a bad writer and that this was an implication he
*wanted* to have in his novel.
I'm sticking to merely observing that it was poor writing. The
implication that I am calling Heinlein a fascist is entirely of your own
devising.
>> For the record: I concur. Heinlein is IMO a barely competent pulp
>> writer, whose plots are full of inconsistencies or barely considered
>> unfortunate implications.
>>
>> Yes, that means I agree with Verhoeven, for example. Starship Troopers'
>> basic idea *sounds* like a paean to meritocracy, but on closer analysis
>> the message is "The only people that count are those that do or have
>> done service to the State", which *is* naked fascism. Verhoeven saw
>> that, ran with it and parodied it, and look how he got crucified.
<snip>
>> writer, whose plots are full of inconsistencies or barely considered
>> unfortunate implications.
>>
>> Yes, that means I agree with Verhoeven, for example. Starship Troopers'
>> basic idea *sounds* like a paean to meritocracy, but on closer analysis
>> the message is "The only people that count are those that do or have
>> done service to the State", which *is* naked fascism. Verhoeven saw
>> that, ran with it and parodied it, and look how he got crucified.
>>
> Not bad, by my count 46 messages to reach "Heinlein was a fascist".
>
You have reading problems?
> Not bad, by my count 46 messages to reach "Heinlein was a fascist".
>
I did nowhere state that Heinlein was a fascist.
I did state that Heinlein obviously hadn't considered the implications
of his envisioned society in 'Starship Troopers', and that anyone who
concludes that that society is fascist has a very good point.
That is not the same at all. Unless of course you want to argue that
Heinlein is *not* such a bad writer and that this was an implication he
*wanted* to have in his novel.
I'm sticking to merely observing that it was poor writing. The
implication that I am calling Heinlein a fascist is entirely of your own
devising.
Walter Bushell
Sep 21, 2011, 8:17:02 AM9/21/11
to
In article <4e796bcb....@news.supernews.com>,
implementation of seat belts has caused a lowering of standards for
transplant donors, back in the day there were plenty of young healthy
transplant donors. Perhaps we could encourage motorcycle use.
fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
> _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
> But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
> teenage years.
Remember back then there were no seat belts. It seems that the
> As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
> _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
> But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
> teenage years.
implementation of seat belts has caused a lowering of standards for
transplant donors, back in the day there were plenty of young healthy
transplant donors. Perhaps we could encourage motorcycle use.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sep 21, 2011, 9:12:04 AM9/21/11
to
On 9/21/11 8:17 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<4e796bcb....@news.supernews.com>,
> fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>> As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
>> _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
>> But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
>> teenage years.
>
> Remember back then there were no seat belts.
And it was perfectly okay for kids to not be belted in for YEARS after
> In article<4e796bcb....@news.supernews.com>,
> fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>> As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
>> _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
>> But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
>> teenage years.
>
> Remember back then there were no seat belts.
they were introduced. I remember long cross-country trips with my family
in our van, which my dad had modified to have a bed/play area in the
back, so me and my brother would sit, lounge, or play quietly for many
miles. SO much better on everyone's nerves than the "lock them into a
roll-cage" mentality today.
And no one thought there was anything terribly odd about kids wandering
through our neighborhood unsupervised, or teenagers or even older
pre-teens experimenting with things that went KABOOM.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Will in New Haven
Sep 21, 2011, 10:43:22 AM9/21/11
to
On Sep 20, 4:54 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:30 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
> > > (Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
>
> > Not for them. To assume that they were monsters for that reason is to
> > assume that anyone who reached the new world on a sailing ship with
> > family in tow was a monster.
>
> As I've noted, the book is a re-telling of the settlement of the New
> World, complete with Johnny Appleseed, with science-fiction sugar-
> coating, which basically excuses the problem as far as Heinlein is
> concerned.
>
> > > The book praises her courage, but presents turning around and going
> > > back at the first sign of trouble as inappropriate (cowardly?) instead
> > > of prudent - and, indeed, *morally obligatory* when innocent life is
> > > at stake.
>
> > We have become very squeamish in recent decades. To assume that the
> > settlers of a fictional Solar System would be equally squeamish is
> > extremely foolish.
>
> Squeamish is very much the wrong word for what I'm talking about.
>
> Squeamishness is when people avoid things that are _not_ morally
> wrong, because they're "icky".
Risking lives is morally wrong for some reason other than "icky."
Please elucidate. The entire "value of human life" religion MUST have
a central text. Perhaps you could point me to it.
--
Will in New Haven
"He only did what he had to do; and now he's growing old"
Townes Van Zandt - "Pancho and Lefty"
> On Sep 20, 1:30 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2:56 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > Yes. But that wasn't sufficient reason to turn around and go back.
> > > (Yes, with a horrendous financial penalty, of course.)
>
> > Not for them. To assume that they were monsters for that reason is to
> > assume that anyone who reached the new world on a sailing ship with
> > family in tow was a monster.
>
> As I've noted, the book is a re-telling of the settlement of the New
> World, complete with Johnny Appleseed, with science-fiction sugar-
> coating, which basically excuses the problem as far as Heinlein is
> concerned.
>
> > > The book praises her courage, but presents turning around and going
> > > back at the first sign of trouble as inappropriate (cowardly?) instead
> > > of prudent - and, indeed, *morally obligatory* when innocent life is
> > > at stake.
>
> > We have become very squeamish in recent decades. To assume that the
> > settlers of a fictional Solar System would be equally squeamish is
> > extremely foolish.
>
> Squeamish is very much the wrong word for what I'm talking about.
>
> Squeamishness is when people avoid things that are _not_ morally
> wrong, because they're "icky".
Risking lives is morally wrong for some reason other than "icky."
Please elucidate. The entire "value of human life" religion MUST have
a central text. Perhaps you could point me to it.
--
Will in New Haven
"He only did what he had to do; and now he's growing old"
Townes Van Zandt - "Pancho and Lefty"
Howard Brazee
Sep 21, 2011, 10:41:48 AM9/21/11
to
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:51:07 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:
>>I was thinking more of the decision not to go back and get a
>>university education.
>
>As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
>_Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
>But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
>teenage years.
But of course, the USAmericans standards of today are obviously the
Right ones, that God intended from the start and will be remain the
standards when we have interstellar travel.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
wrote:
>>I was thinking more of the decision not to go back and get a
>>university education.
>
>As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
>_Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
>But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
>teenage years.
Right ones, that God intended from the start and will be remain the
standards when we have interstellar travel.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Will in New Haven
Sep 21, 2011, 10:47:59 AM9/21/11
to
James Nicoll
Sep 21, 2011, 10:50:05 AM9/21/11
to
In article <MPG.28e30a191...@news.eternal-september.org>,
That's because about 99% of the PopBomb stuff can be divided into
thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
than Ted Turner breeds without limit), with an element of thinly
disguised class paranoia (the savage poor will outbreed us, rather
than Ted Turner would like to buy your breeding rights so he and
his family can continue to breed like oversexed mice).
thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
than Ted Turner breeds without limit), with an element of thinly
disguised class paranoia (the savage poor will outbreed us, rather
than Ted Turner would like to buy your breeding rights so he and
his family can continue to breed like oversexed mice).
Mike Stone
Sep 21, 2011, 11:01:19 AM9/21/11
to
On Sep 20, 5:58 pm, "Raymond Daley" <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> utter shit or not worth the time they took to do.
> Any decent pressure test would have flagged this as an issue long before
> they ever left Earth.
>
Iirc, the tests were something mandated by government.
That being so, would you seriously expect them to be worth ****?
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Always drink upriver from the herd.
wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:2182f214-eaf8-4d3e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
> that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates.
>
> Proves the "medical tests" they all went through were either complete and
> The narrator's sister _dies_ because she has a respiratory problem
> that the thin atmosphere on Ganymede exacerbates.
>
> utter shit or not worth the time they took to do.
> Any decent pressure test would have flagged this as an issue long before
> they ever left Earth.
>
Iirc, the tests were something mandated by government.
That being so, would you seriously expect them to be worth ****?
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Always drink upriver from the herd.
Joel Polowin
Sep 21, 2011, 11:09:22 AM9/21/11
to
On Sep 20, 11:25 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <8%8eq.5731$4X4.2...@newsfe27.ams2>,
> Raymond Daley <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >"Tim McDaniel" <t...@tmcd-p4-linux.austin.tx.us> wrote in message
> >> The rest looks more like trollery.
>
> >It wasn't. It was a passionate if somewhat vocifarious opinion that ended
> >up being rather sweary.
> >If I want to call a writer a wanker because he forgot something he himself
> >said earlier in the very same book I have that right.
>
> You're swearing at Heinlein due to a nonsensical straw man of your own
> construction. Medical tests today are not 100% perfect, and I doubt
> that they'll be so in the future.
> In article <8%8eq.5731$4X4.2...@newsfe27.ams2>,
> Raymond Daley <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >"Tim McDaniel" <t...@tmcd-p4-linux.austin.tx.us> wrote in message
> >> The rest looks more like trollery.
>
> >It wasn't. It was a passionate if somewhat vocifarious opinion that ended
> >up being rather sweary.
> >If I want to call a writer a wanker because he forgot something he himself
> >said earlier in the very same book I have that right.
>
> You're swearing at Heinlein due to a nonsensical straw man of your own
> construction. Medical tests today are not 100% perfect, and I doubt
> that they'll be so in the future.
Note also that it was shown repeatedly that the corporation's goal
was to ship as many people out to the colony as possible, without
necessarily providing them with the resources they needed to do well.
David DeLaney
Sep 21, 2011, 11:36:16 AM9/21/11
to
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>jdni...@panix.com says...
>>> Framing the conversation in terms of teeming hordes of brown people,
>>> scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
>>> population bomb rhetorical gambit.
>>
>>On both sides of the fence - what easier way to just dismiss the whole
>>thing as racial paranoia?
>
>That's because about 99% of the PopBomb stuff can be divided into
>thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
>than Ted Turner breeds without limit), with an element of thinly
>disguised class paranoia (the savage poor will outbreed us, rather
>than Ted Turner would like to buy your breeding rights so he and
>his family can continue to breed like oversexed mice).
>Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>jdni...@panix.com says...
>>> Framing the conversation in terms of teeming hordes of brown people,
>>> scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
>>> population bomb rhetorical gambit.
>>
>>On both sides of the fence - what easier way to just dismiss the whole
>>thing as racial paranoia?
>
>That's because about 99% of the PopBomb stuff can be divided into
>thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
>than Ted Turner breeds without limit), with an element of thinly
>disguised class paranoia (the savage poor will outbreed us, rather
>than Ted Turner would like to buy your breeding rights so he and
>his family can continue to breed like oversexed mice).
If only we had Larry Niven here to propose fair solutions to this issue!
Dave 'and still, more people died and emigrated than were born and immigrated'
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.
lal_truckee
Sep 21, 2011, 11:47:47 AM9/21/11
to
On 9/20/11 10:52 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> "Dale Colombo is
> the pen name which a pair of well-known authors use for the Boys' Life
> space-travel stories they write together.
isfdb doesn't know who "dale Colombo" is. I'm surprised.
> "Dale Colombo is
> the pen name which a pair of well-known authors use for the Boys' Life
> space-travel stories they write together.
Paul Ciszek
Sep 21, 2011, 11:56:12 AM9/21/11
to
In article <94si77df3m297usae...@4ax.com>,
michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>
>Heinlein wrote quite a number of strong female characters that played
>significant roles. Betty Sorenson (The Star Beast) was clearly the
>sharper of the lead characters. In Have Space Suit Will Travel,
There was a scene in _The Star Beast_ that perhaps someone more acquainted
>
>Heinlein wrote quite a number of strong female characters that played
>significant roles. Betty Sorenson (The Star Beast) was clearly the
>sharper of the lead characters. In Have Space Suit Will Travel,
with both Heinlein and the fifties could clarify. Betty is talking about
why she became emancipated. The actual situation is not described in any
terms that I at the time could comprehend, but the male lead is shocked.
My late-twentieth centrury sensibilities of course immediately filled in
"incest/molestation" as the shocking circumstance, and since no one took
those things seriously when the story was written, the victim sought
emancipation to get away from her abuser. Has anyone read the book more
recently, and can make sense of that scene?
Bill Snyder
Sep 21, 2011, 11:56:08 AM9/21/11
to
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:36:16 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>jdni...@panix.com says...
>>>> Framing the conversation in terms of teeming hordes of brown people,
>>>> scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
>>>> population bomb rhetorical gambit.
>>>
>>>On both sides of the fence - what easier way to just dismiss the whole
>>>thing as racial paranoia?
>>
>>That's because about 99% of the PopBomb stuff can be divided into
>>thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
>>than Ted Turner breeds without limit), with an element of thinly
>>disguised class paranoia (the savage poor will outbreed us, rather
>>than Ted Turner would like to buy your breeding rights so he and
>>his family can continue to breed like oversexed mice).
>
>If only we had Larry Niven here to propose fair solutions to this issue!
>
>Dave 'and still, more people died and emigrated
In any particular order?
DeLaney) wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>jdni...@panix.com says...
>>>> Framing the conversation in terms of teeming hordes of brown people,
>>>> scary scary brown people, WHO ARE NOT US!!!!!!!! is a standard
>>>> population bomb rhetorical gambit.
>>>
>>>On both sides of the fence - what easier way to just dismiss the whole
>>>thing as racial paranoia?
>>
>>That's because about 99% of the PopBomb stuff can be divided into
>>thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
>>than Ted Turner breeds without limit), with an element of thinly
>>disguised class paranoia (the savage poor will outbreed us, rather
>>than Ted Turner would like to buy your breeding rights so he and
>>his family can continue to breed like oversexed mice).
>
>If only we had Larry Niven here to propose fair solutions to this issue!
>
>Dave 'and still, more people died and emigrated
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Paul Ciszek
Sep 21, 2011, 12:02:50 PM9/21/11
to
In article <6a4f8b09-d229-4182...@w21g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
That sounds like the plot of _Aliens_; I don't recall Ganymede being a
corporate affair. I thought there was still a strong government/military
component to the colonization effort. Did Ganymede export anything back
to Earth?
(The Moon exported grain in _tMiaHM_, but all they needed was a catapult
and besides, once they were independent and insisted that the biomass be
replaced, no one on Earth found it worthwhile to do the exchange.)
Paul Ciszek
Sep 21, 2011, 12:15:55 PM9/21/11
to
In article <lvgnk8-...@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <Lru14...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is so
>>they can be married to each other without anybody making snarky
>>remarks. Molly was George's draftsman.
>
>I had more of an impression that George wanted to just get away from
>>OK, George and Molly.* The reason they want to go to Ganymede is so
>>they can be married to each other without anybody making snarky
>>remarks. Molly was George's draftsman.
>
>the memories of Anne (his first wife) and his old life, but your
>version I hadn't considered and may be more compelling. But against
>that I'll note that Bill, even when he was disliking Molly, didn't
>even think it.
Would it really have been so scandalous for a widower to marry a widow
(I think Molly was a widow?) in the fifties or any other decade? Granted,
many employers treated employees who got married quite terribly.
I think George may have also had another motivation for wanting to get
his family off of Earth, that I will explain below.
>>That's the other reason George wanted to leave Bill behind;
>>because he might someday mention his mother, who wasn't Molly.
>
>would have been unexceptionable. Mentioning that Molly once worked
>for George might be a problem for the reason you indicated, but Bill
>was old enough to have that explained to him, and intelligent and nice
>enough to have gone along with it.
>
>>But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
>>your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
>>to get away from Bill altogether.
>
>Given Bill's affection for George, and I think George's affection for
>>But telling Bill "You have to stay on Earth and get
>>your engineering degree" is a cover-up. What they really want is
>>to get away from Bill altogether.
>
>Bill, I think that's entirely mean-spirited and even paranoid.
>George was an engineer and was thinking of how to provide for Bill and
>get him to be a secure engineer too.
Regarding Bill's decision to NOT go back to Earth for college: There is
a scene where Bill is talking to a pilot who has had more recent contact
with Earth that the rest of the characters about the way things are
going. It ends with Bill-as-narrator saying something like "I think I
knew why <name of pilot> had started letting his beard grow," meaning
that the pilot was thinking of making Ganymede his home instead of Earth.
I got the impression that both Bill and the pilot were thinking of Earth
as A Place Out Of Which You Must Get Before It's Too Late. If Bill went
back for college, there might not be able to get a ride back out again
four years later. I wonder if George had some ideas along the same lines,
and had relocated his family to Ganymede for that reason in the first place.
Paul Ciszek
Sep 21, 2011, 12:24:11 PM9/21/11
to
In article <proto-E188FC....@news.panix.com>,
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article
><cd219a56-ca33-44e6...@h7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with those who scoff at Malthus. The Earth is finite,
>> and food production is a mature technology - no Moore's Law for it.
>>
>> We may get lucky with some kind of genetically-engineered food, but
>> there are risks there too, even if they are overblown by some. Both
>> sides in that controversy are so obviously driven by ideology that I
>> have just thrown up my hands when it comes to figuring out what the
>> facts are. But even if we do, that's just a temporary fix.
>
>At some population point the calories needed for food production will
>exceed the ability of the Earth to radiate the energy at livable
>temperatures, even if we get total conversion. Oh, yes and the energy
>that is going to be needed for desalinization.
As I said elsewhere, our energy use is within about three orders of
magnitude of the Puppeteer homeworld situation.
Raymond Daley
Sep 21, 2011, 12:26:12 PM9/21/11
to
(Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> >Raymond Daley <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
> >>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
Calling Gretchen and her mom "complete homebodies" is totally
> >>As per usual its badly written female characters who are either
> >>complete homebodies & babymakers or total man hating shrews.
misleading and inaccurate. Gretchen was admired for her farming and
homesteading skills which is critical for survival. and her mom for
her cooking skills and being the master of the kitchen. They weren't
the helpless, faint hearted damsel in distress trophy type women.
That is an asset when pioneering a homestead. So is making babies
I dont think you got what I meant when I said homebodies.
I kinda meant stay at home, cook, clean, mind the animals, feed the menfolk
type women.
I certainly didn't mean helpless/useless simpering wretches.
When I read it I was pretty convinced the main boy was going to end up
marrying Gretchen as thats where it seemed like their relationship was
going, especially from his good natured teasing and her getting P.O'd when
he suggested a different female brought him something.
That to me sounded like she was sweet on him and jealous of him even
thinking about other women supporting his endevours.
When I read it Johann and his family all look like Amish (in my head thats
the picture I have of them) folk.
Joel Polowin
Sep 21, 2011, 12:34:05 PM9/21/11
to
On Sep 21, 12:02 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
"corporation", "Colonial Commission":
"I'm not a magician. We've asked the Colonial Commission by
urgent message going back on the _Mayflower_ not to send us
any more colonists on the next trip, but to send us machinery.
If they agree, there may be some relief from the situation by
next winter. But you have seen -- all of you have already
seen -- that the Colonial Commission makes decisions without
consulting us. The first trip of the Mayflower should have
been all cargo; you folks should have waited." [...]
"We might as well get this point straight. You people have been
enticed into coming out here by rosy promises and you are
understandably disappointed. But your contract is with the
Colonial Commission _back on Earth_. But you have no contract
with the common council of Ganymede, of which I am chairman,
and the citizens of Ganymede owe you nothing. We are trying to
take care of you out of common decency.
"If you don't like what we offer you, don't start throwing your
weight around with me; I won't stand for it. Take it up with
the representative of the Immigration Service. That's what
he is here for. Meeting's adjourned!"
> Joel Polowin <jpolo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Note also that it was shown repeatedly that the corporation's goal
> >was to ship as many people out to the colony as possible, without
> >necessarily providing them with the resources they needed to do well.
>
> That sounds like the plot of _Aliens_; I don't recall Ganymede being a
> corporate affair. I thought there was still a strong government/military
> component to the colonization effort. Did Ganymede export anything back
> to Earth?
Checking the book... I was misremembering the phrasing. Not
> >Note also that it was shown repeatedly that the corporation's goal
> >was to ship as many people out to the colony as possible, without
> >necessarily providing them with the resources they needed to do well.
>
> That sounds like the plot of _Aliens_; I don't recall Ganymede being a
> corporate affair. I thought there was still a strong government/military
> component to the colonization effort. Did Ganymede export anything back
> to Earth?
"corporation", "Colonial Commission":
"I'm not a magician. We've asked the Colonial Commission by
urgent message going back on the _Mayflower_ not to send us
any more colonists on the next trip, but to send us machinery.
If they agree, there may be some relief from the situation by
next winter. But you have seen -- all of you have already
seen -- that the Colonial Commission makes decisions without
consulting us. The first trip of the Mayflower should have
been all cargo; you folks should have waited." [...]
"We might as well get this point straight. You people have been
enticed into coming out here by rosy promises and you are
understandably disappointed. But your contract is with the
Colonial Commission _back on Earth_. But you have no contract
with the common council of Ganymede, of which I am chairman,
and the citizens of Ganymede owe you nothing. We are trying to
take care of you out of common decency.
"If you don't like what we offer you, don't start throwing your
weight around with me; I won't stand for it. Take it up with
the representative of the Immigration Service. That's what
he is here for. Meeting's adjourned!"
Raymond Daley
Sep 21, 2011, 12:36:29 PM9/21/11
to
"Tim McDaniel" wrote in message
Actually I'm perfectly sane and have a bit of paper to even prove it.
Thanks for the stupid kneejerk reaction though.
Feel free to use your killfile.
And I stand by my comment too.
If you can't see how lazy Heinlein was being in "Farmer" then thats your own
blinkered outlook.
He firmly establishes a set of circumstances then completely "forgets" them
a mere few chapters later.
The books not THAT long to be able to flick back and see what plot devices
were previously established for characters.
I asked if he was doing those things as to ask WTF was his excuse for being
so crap about the whole not addressing his OWN plot.
He's either got an excuse by being a drunk or on drugs on mentally ill.
Or he's a lazy twat who couldn't be bothered to read back 50 odd pages in
his own book.
> Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have
>>dementia or early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a
>>writer he was incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what
>>ground work he'd already established.
> I've got better things to do than read a raving loony.
>
>>Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have
>>dementia or early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a
>>writer he was incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what
>>ground work he'd already established.
Actually I'm perfectly sane and have a bit of paper to even prove it.
Thanks for the stupid kneejerk reaction though.
Feel free to use your killfile.
And I stand by my comment too.
If you can't see how lazy Heinlein was being in "Farmer" then thats your own
blinkered outlook.
He firmly establishes a set of circumstances then completely "forgets" them
a mere few chapters later.
The books not THAT long to be able to flick back and see what plot devices
were previously established for characters.
I asked if he was doing those things as to ask WTF was his excuse for being
so crap about the whole not addressing his OWN plot.
He's either got an excuse by being a drunk or on drugs on mentally ill.
Or he's a lazy twat who couldn't be bothered to read back 50 odd pages in
his own book.
Will in New Haven
Sep 21, 2011, 12:41:56 PM9/21/11
to
On Sep 21, 12:36 pm, "Raymond Daley" <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
though.
wrote:
> "Tim McDaniel" wrote in message
> > Raymond Daley <raymond.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have
> >>dementia or early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a
> >>writer he was incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what
> >>ground work he'd already established.
> > I've got better things to do than read a raving loony.
>
> Actually I'm perfectly sane and have a bit of paper to even prove it.
> Thanks for the stupid kneejerk reaction though.
> Feel free to use your killfile.
Why would anyone killfile you? Glad you have that piece of paper,
>
> >>Was Heinlein a drunk, or a lush or a drug fiend or did he have
> >>dementia or early onset Alzheimers or was he just THAT bad/lazy a
> >>writer he was incapable of reading back a few chapters to see what
> >>ground work he'd already established.
> > I've got better things to do than read a raving loony.
>
> Actually I'm perfectly sane and have a bit of paper to even prove it.
> Thanks for the stupid kneejerk reaction though.
> Feel free to use your killfile.
though.
Richard R. Hershberger
Sep 21, 2011, 1:23:24 PM9/21/11
to
On Sep 20, 11:23 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <proto-56155C.21425820092...@news.panix.com>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <5lgnk8-nqe....@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
> > t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
> >> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and
> >> they are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
> >> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
> >> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen
> >> novel.
>
> >That's what you do on a pioneer planet.
>
> Funny, I doubt that you'd indeed expect male *me* to do that on a
> pioneer planet. I guess this is Planet Stereotype, where the women
> are required to stay home and the men are required to do everything
> outside. That's a stereotype of the 19th C.
My father always said it is very important when selecting a wife that
she have stout, broad hips, in case the mule dies and you need to
hitch her up to the plow.
Oddly enough, my wife does not appreciate this timeless wisdom.
Richard R. Hershberger
> In article <proto-56155C.21425820092...@news.panix.com>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <5lgnk8-nqe....@tmcd-linux-p4.austin.tx.us>,
> > t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
> >> Gretchen and her mother are the two who are most fleshed out, and
> >> they are indeed complete homebodies, and the latter is a babymaker.
> >> I think one other sister has detail: she was praised for painting
> >> tiles, which would not have been out of place in a Jane Austen
> >> novel.
>
> >That's what you do on a pioneer planet.
>
> Funny, I doubt that you'd indeed expect male *me* to do that on a
> pioneer planet. I guess this is Planet Stereotype, where the women
> are required to stay home and the men are required to do everything
> outside. That's a stereotype of the 19th C.
My father always said it is very important when selecting a wife that
she have stout, broad hips, in case the mule dies and you need to
hitch her up to the plow.
Oddly enough, my wife does not appreciate this timeless wisdom.
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
Sep 21, 2011, 1:26:35 PM9/21/11
to
On Sep 21, 8:17 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <4e796bcb.1184750...@news.supernews.com>,
Richard R. Hershberger
> In article <4e796bcb.1184750...@news.supernews.com>,
> fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
> > As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
> > _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
> > But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
> > teenage years.
>
> Remember back then there were no seat belts. It seems that the
> implementation of seat belts has caused a lowering of standards for
> transplant donors, back in the day there were plenty of young healthy
> transplant donors. Perhaps we could encourage motorcycle use.
I'm old school: make multiple traffic violations a capital offense.
>
> > As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
> > _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
> > But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
> > teenage years.
>
> Remember back then there were no seat belts. It seems that the
> implementation of seat belts has caused a lowering of standards for
> transplant donors, back in the day there were plenty of young healthy
> transplant donors. Perhaps we could encourage motorcycle use.
Richard R. Hershberger
Bill Snyder
Sep 21, 2011, 1:24:07 PM9/21/11
to
Richard R. Hershberger
Sep 21, 2011, 1:34:00 PM9/21/11
to
On Sep 21, 9:12 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > In article<4e796bcb.1184750...@news.supernews.com>,
rolled up balls of aluminum foil in a coke bottle did the trick
nicely. The real point, of course, was to blow up the balloon. Good
times. And probably safer than the tennis ball cannons we made with
coke cans (back in the pre-aluminum can days) with the ends cut off
(except for the bottom of the base can) and duct taped together. Poke
a paper clip through, about an inch from the bottom. Poke a hole
about a quarter inch from the bottom. Use the hole to insert lighter
fluid. Drop a tennis ball down. The paper clip is to keep it from
the very bottom. Insert a lit match through the hole. Good times
follow. For real fun, soak the tennis ball in lighter fluid first and
do this at night.
I am the proud father of two young daughters. I live on a safe
street, apart from the registered pedophile two doors down, and have
woods behind the house. The girls aren't really up for wandering much
yet, but I anticipate lively debates with my wife, who will want to
keep them chained to the house until the age of majority.
Richard R. Hershberger
> > In article<4e796bcb.1184750...@news.supernews.com>,
> > fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
> >> As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
> >> _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
> >> But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
> >> teenage years.
>
> > Remember back then there were no seat belts.
>
> And it was perfectly okay for kids to not be belted in for YEARS after
> they were introduced. I remember long cross-country trips with my family
> in our van, which my dad had modified to have a bed/play area in the
> back, so me and my brother would sit, lounge, or play quietly for many
> miles. SO much better on everyone's nerves than the "lock them into a
> roll-cage" mentality today.
>
> And no one thought there was anything terribly odd about kids wandering
> through our neighborhood unsupervised, or teenagers or even older
> pre-teens experimenting with things that went KABOOM.
We used to make hydrogen balloons when I was a kid: water, lye, and
>
> >> As with the "death rate in high school" discussion back in the
> >> _Tunnel_ thread, that seems highly surprising and a bad idea today...
> >> But would not seem so to the audience of then, or even as recent as my
> >> teenage years.
>
> > Remember back then there were no seat belts.
>
> And it was perfectly okay for kids to not be belted in for YEARS after
> they were introduced. I remember long cross-country trips with my family
> in our van, which my dad had modified to have a bed/play area in the
> back, so me and my brother would sit, lounge, or play quietly for many
> miles. SO much better on everyone's nerves than the "lock them into a
> roll-cage" mentality today.
>
> And no one thought there was anything terribly odd about kids wandering
> through our neighborhood unsupervised, or teenagers or even older
> pre-teens experimenting with things that went KABOOM.
rolled up balls of aluminum foil in a coke bottle did the trick
nicely. The real point, of course, was to blow up the balloon. Good
times. And probably safer than the tennis ball cannons we made with
coke cans (back in the pre-aluminum can days) with the ends cut off
(except for the bottom of the base can) and duct taped together. Poke
a paper clip through, about an inch from the bottom. Poke a hole
about a quarter inch from the bottom. Use the hole to insert lighter
fluid. Drop a tennis ball down. The paper clip is to keep it from
the very bottom. Insert a lit match through the hole. Good times
follow. For real fun, soak the tennis ball in lighter fluid first and
do this at night.
I am the proud father of two young daughters. I live on a safe
street, apart from the registered pedophile two doors down, and have
woods behind the house. The girls aren't really up for wandering much
yet, but I anticipate lively debates with my wife, who will want to
keep them chained to the house until the age of majority.
Richard R. Hershberger
Tim McDaniel
Sep 21, 2011, 1:48:25 PM9/21/11
to
In article <j5d1er$632$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
child being emancipated because she was being exposed to religion, and
the listener being shocked?
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <94si77df3m297usae...@4ax.com>,
>michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>Heinlein wrote quite a number of strong female characters that played
>>significant roles. Betty Sorenson (The Star Beast) was clearly the
>>sharper of the lead characters. In Have Space Suit Will Travel,
>
>There was a scene in _The Star Beast_ that perhaps someone more
>acquainted with both Heinlein and the fifties could clarify. Betty
>is talking about why she became emancipated. The actual situation is
>not described in any terms that I at the time could comprehend, but
>the male lead is shocked.
Am I cross-connecting to some other Heinlein story when I remember a
>
>In article <94si77df3m297usae...@4ax.com>,
>michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>Heinlein wrote quite a number of strong female characters that played
>>significant roles. Betty Sorenson (The Star Beast) was clearly the
>>sharper of the lead characters. In Have Space Suit Will Travel,
>
>There was a scene in _The Star Beast_ that perhaps someone more
>acquainted with both Heinlein and the fifties could clarify. Betty
>is talking about why she became emancipated. The actual situation is
>not described in any terms that I at the time could comprehend, but
>the male lead is shocked.
child being emancipated because she was being exposed to religion, and
the listener being shocked?
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
Sep 21, 2011, 2:04:21 PM9/21/11
to
In article
<1f961a77-c083-415f...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
djinn <dje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>George just dumped the decision on Bill without any warning, and
>obviously intended not to give him time to think about it. It seemed
>pretty raw when I read it as a kid and really cold when I read it as
>adult.
Dumped stuff on him twice, actually. The first time is when George
told Bill that George was going to emigrate but would not permit Bill
to do so. Bill argued him around. Then George sprang his marriage to
Molly on Bill the day before the wedding.
My interpolation was that George was just very good as a parent per
se, and perhaps just not good with people skills in general, and also
he knew how strong Bill would react to a remarriage at least and
procrastinated just to put off that trouble.
Yes, this is me filling in the gap in the narrative, and the most
convincing lie is the one that the listener invents. But I base it on
George generally being shown as a decent and competent person
otherwise, and that he did adduce plausible reasons for wanting Bill
to stay back on Earth, reasons that would sway a father and engineer:
that Ganymede was dangerous (he had previously cited how the first
four expeditions to California had died), and that he wanted Bill to
get a good university education. I don't remember him giving a reason
for the remarriage, other than that they needed to be married to
emigrate.
<1f961a77-c083-415f...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
djinn <dje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>George just dumped the decision on Bill without any warning, and
>obviously intended not to give him time to think about it. It seemed
>pretty raw when I read it as a kid and really cold when I read it as
>adult.
Dumped stuff on him twice, actually. The first time is when George
told Bill that George was going to emigrate but would not permit Bill
to do so. Bill argued him around. Then George sprang his marriage to
Molly on Bill the day before the wedding.
My interpolation was that George was just very good as a parent per
se, and perhaps just not good with people skills in general, and also
he knew how strong Bill would react to a remarriage at least and
procrastinated just to put off that trouble.
Yes, this is me filling in the gap in the narrative, and the most
convincing lie is the one that the listener invents. But I base it on
George generally being shown as a decent and competent person
otherwise, and that he did adduce plausible reasons for wanting Bill
to stay back on Earth, reasons that would sway a father and engineer:
that Ganymede was dangerous (he had previously cited how the first
four expeditions to California had died), and that he wanted Bill to
get a good university education. I don't remember him giving a reason
for the remarriage, other than that they needed to be married to
emigrate.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 21, 2011, 1:53:58 PM9/21/11
to
In article <j5d2jr$chg$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
-- explicitly says that he's emigrating to the Jovian system (only
then does Bill realize the significance of the beard).
He says that he expects war in no less than 40 years and no more than
70 (as I recall). But while war is not a problem in getting back,
there can be disorders and partial collapses before actual shooting.
When Bill is pondering going back to Earth for education, he mentions
(in thinking) that it would now feel all wrong -- weight too heavy,
air too thick and humid -- but doesn't even consider that he might not
be able to get a ride back.
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Regarding Bill's decision to NOT go back to Earth for college: There
>is a scene where Bill is talking to a pilot who has had more recent
>contact with Earth that the rest of the characters about the way
>things are going. It ends with Bill-as-narrator saying something
>like "I think I knew why <name of pilot> had started letting his
>beard grow," meaning that the pilot was thinking of making Ganymede
>his home instead of Earth. I got the impression that both Bill and
>the pilot were thinking of Earth as A Place Out Of Which You Must Get
>Before It's Too Late. If Bill went back for college, there might not
>be able to get a ride back out again four years later. I wonder if
>George had some ideas along the same lines, and had relocated his
>family to Ganymede for that reason in the first place.
The fellow -- the head of the survey expedition for which Bill is cook
>Regarding Bill's decision to NOT go back to Earth for college: There
>is a scene where Bill is talking to a pilot who has had more recent
>contact with Earth that the rest of the characters about the way
>things are going. It ends with Bill-as-narrator saying something
>like "I think I knew why <name of pilot> had started letting his
>beard grow," meaning that the pilot was thinking of making Ganymede
>his home instead of Earth. I got the impression that both Bill and
>the pilot were thinking of Earth as A Place Out Of Which You Must Get
>Before It's Too Late. If Bill went back for college, there might not
>be able to get a ride back out again four years later. I wonder if
>George had some ideas along the same lines, and had relocated his
>family to Ganymede for that reason in the first place.
-- explicitly says that he's emigrating to the Jovian system (only
then does Bill realize the significance of the beard).
He says that he expects war in no less than 40 years and no more than
70 (as I recall). But while war is not a problem in getting back,
there can be disorders and partial collapses before actual shooting.
When Bill is pondering going back to Earth for education, he mentions
(in thinking) that it would now feel all wrong -- weight too heavy,
air too thick and humid -- but doesn't even consider that he might not
be able to get a ride back.
Tim McDaniel
Sep 21, 2011, 2:11:33 PM9/21/11
to
In article <j5ctit$cjg$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
only major population pressure mentioned in the two books I reviewed
was from Asia.
Tunnel in the Sky: Asians herding families like cattle thru the gates.
Farmer in the Sky: Bill mentions that they cut the ration.
"Again. Look, George, I don't get it. This was a good crop
year and they started operating the Montana yeast plant besides."
...
"Did you notice the results of the Chinese census as well?
Try it on your slide rule."
I knew what he meant -- and the steak suddenly tasted like old
rubber. What's the use in being careful is somebody on the other
side of theglobe is going to spoil your try? "Those darned
Chinese ought to quit raising babies and start raising food!"
Which was a plausible extrapolation given Mao's peasant-like opinion
on population (the more the merrier), but just another dated detail
now.
Oh, and in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_, the only really crowded and
famine-ridden area mentioned was India, as I recall.
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>That's because about 99% of the PopBomb stuff can be divided into
>thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
>than Ted Turner breeds without limit),
I don't have any sort of survey of the field. I just notice that the
>That's because about 99% of the PopBomb stuff can be divided into
>thinly disguised racial paranoia (Indians breed without limit, rather
>than Ted Turner breeds without limit),
only major population pressure mentioned in the two books I reviewed
was from Asia.
Tunnel in the Sky: Asians herding families like cattle thru the gates.
Farmer in the Sky: Bill mentions that they cut the ration.
"Again. Look, George, I don't get it. This was a good crop
year and they started operating the Montana yeast plant besides."
...
"Did you notice the results of the Chinese census as well?
Try it on your slide rule."
I knew what he meant -- and the steak suddenly tasted like old
rubber. What's the use in being careful is somebody on the other
side of theglobe is going to spoil your try? "Those darned
Chinese ought to quit raising babies and start raising food!"
Which was a plausible extrapolation given Mao's peasant-like opinion
on population (the more the merrier), but just another dated detail
now.
Oh, and in _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_, the only really crowded and
famine-ridden area mentioned was India, as I recall.
Ahasuerus
Sep 21, 2011, 2:20:49 PM9/21/11
to
The ISFDB policy is not to disclose pseudonyms unless they are already
listed in published bibliographies or otherwise publicly available,
e.g. on http://www.trussel.com/books/aka.htm , so even if I knew the
identity of "Dale Colombo" (which I don't), I wouldn't enter it in
ISFDB.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages