Space Shuttle Endeavor Launch 11mar08

(Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:

There are no "sustainable economics".

Ok, the economics of sustainability; my poor phrasing. I'm aware of all
sides of the debate, I just don't see any evidence that we're in *any*
way prepared to start replacing the unmatched energy density offered by
oil. Given that our entire civilisation is based on what used to pump out
of the ground for if you stuck a pipe in the sand, I think it's a
reasonable thing to be concerned about. China & India are accelerating us
towards a supply & demand bottleneck which many debt-laden Western
nations are ill-prepared to deal with.

But this isn't really the place to discuss it... though it will affect
the price of cameras, I'm sure. Not much as Bernanke's inflationary rate
cuts, but... :-)

Andrew McP

(thepixelfreak) wrote:

Try the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Technically (and philosophically), yes. It's a very exciting project...
almost as exciting as fusion in a test tube! (I still haven't forgiven
those guys... I nearly wet myself with excitement).

But I think in terms of raw, unadulterated technological thrill it's
still very hard to beat the Shuttle as the ultimate exclamations mark in
the textbook of human achievements.

Andrew McP

Here is the deal.
I give you life, use it wisely, it won't last forever...

On Mar 15, 9:38 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
There are no "sustainable economics".
* Coal, Oil? selfevident.
* Biomass, Wind, Water all depend on the sun. The sun's bound
to burn itself out and die.
* Tides? The moon will retreat more and more from the earth
(unless we dam up the oceans, it'll happen sooner than
later), and the end of the sun will most probably end
surface water on earth, anyway.
* geothermal? Limited, it's not getting more.
* radioactive? Natural decay alone sets a limit.
* mass conversion? Though theoretically very very efficient,
the mass of the earth, even in the universe, is limited.

-Wolfgang

On 2008-03-16 02:00:00 -0700,
(Andrew MacPherson) said:

But I think in terms of raw, unadulterated technological thrill it's
still very hard to beat the Shuttle as the ultimate exclamations mark in
the textbook of human achievements.

Thrill? Without a doubt.

--

thepixelfreak

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

But I think in terms of raw, unadulterated technological thrill it's
still very hard to beat the Shuttle as the ultimate exclamations mark in
the textbook of human achievements.

Only if you intent to close the textbook today.
I intent to live a while longer ... and retire on the moon.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang, the thought of living on the moon is not a very exciting
one. The moon seems to be lacking in a few resources that would make
your life more enjoyable. At the moment, the earth appears to be the
most favorable place to live.

The problem is that there are far too many people living on the
earth. Mother nature has her way of dealing with problems like this.
She will eliminate this problem thru fire, flood and disease.

I never quite understood this until one year when I decided to raise
pheasants. It was my first attempt and I was very good at it. I
ended up with so many pheasants in such a small space, that they
started to kill each other. By creating a jurassic park of sorts, I
was able to keep them from killing each other.

The same thing happens in most highly populated areas. When I first
moved to a very wealthy city, there was virtually no crime. Many
others decided to move here also and now with a much higher
population, the crime in this city has gotten out of control. I have
sinced moved to a much smaller country village and once again, there
is virtually no crime.

My advice is to "control your environment" as much as you can and you
will enjoy a much healthier life.


On Mar 16, 11:20 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Only if you intent to close the textbook today.
I intent to live a while longer ... and retire on the moon.

-Wolfgang