Conference 7.286::space

In all seriousness, most of the objectives you list sound terrible to me.

>-	Cities:  Light them at night, heat them in winter, cool them in summer,
>	clean their smog by providing a nice wind breaze.

Who wants light 24 hours a day?  Maybe the police forces do; not me, not
astronomers, not farmers, not lots of people.  Who wants to even out the
temperature fluctuations (diurnal and seasonal)?  Not sportsmen, to a large
extent not farmers, certainly not me.  Clean smog by blowing it away?  I've
heard of sweeping dirt under the rug....

>-	Farmers:  Provide them with sun or rain where and when needed.

This could be good.

>-	Storms:  Destroy them or deviate them before they do any harm.

Storms are not all bad.

>-	Deserts:  Get rid of them.

Get rid of rain forests and arctic realms and other places where people don't
seem to want to live by choice while you're at it :-)

>-	Cold latitudes:  Warm them up as needed.
>-	Hot latitudes:	Cool then down as needed.

See earlier comments about temperature variation.

The overall goal sounds to be to create a planetary central park with stable
everything.  But the Earth thrives on diversity.  Stiffle that and you'll be
sorry.
						-- Tom

    	This weather control idea is of course nothing new. The idea of
    using satellites with mirrors to light cities or artic work sites has
    been proposed by the Soviets (one of the original proposed uses of the
    Energia was to launch such satellites). This proposal has been shelved
    at very least temporarily due to enviromental concerns. Personally I
    think that any large scale weather control is beyond our ability to
    control, would use far more energy than it now takes to heat and light
    our cities, and would destroy and alter habitats world wide.
    	Weather is inherently unpredictable. Our atmosphere is governed by
    highly non-linear processes; it is quite literally chaotic (not random
    but chaotic in the dynamic sense). Even if we knew the density,
    temperature, water content, velocity, etc. of every cubic millimeter of 
    air covering the Earth at one instant and we had infintely powerful
    computers to process the data and produce weather predictions, it would
    at best only be accurate for a week. And this forcast would become less
    accurate as time went on or as one looks at smaller areas. Even this
    level of knowledge (which is completely beyond any conceivable
    technology) is not adequet to predict the weather; trying to CONTROL
    the weather on a day to day basis so that the entire Earth emulates
    "Camelot" (sunny during the day, only rains at night, etc.) is not
    possible.
    	Even if the weather could be controlled in a predictable manner,
    the amount of energy needed to do it would be enormous. To defuse
    dangerous storms, bring rain to deserts, and light the polar regions
    would require a control of power comparable to the power nature uses to
    make weather to begin with- about 200 billion megawatts. While control
    of such vast amounts of power is far beyond our technology, it is not
    impossibly large. None the less, this amount of power is larger than
    the amount of power used by all of mankind by several orders of
    magnitude. Clearly, complete control over the weather would consume
    more power than we presently use to put up with it.
    	It should be obvious that if you defrost the polar regions, bring
    rains to the deserts, etc., those habitats would be destroyed and the
    life that inhabits them would be gone, forever. What right do we have
    to condemn to death thousands of species and billions of individual
    creatures just for our own comfort and convenience? The fallicy that
    man is on the Earth to subdue it has been with us since biblical times.
    This whole idea of weather control satellites is yet another example of
    man's arrogant view that the world is here solely for his use. I could
    go on but I would begin to sound like a Green Peace pamphlet.
    	Let me just finish my ranting by saying that I think that are a lot
    more worthwhile endevours for mankind than trying to control the
    weather based on technical, economic, and moral grounds.
                                  
    				Drew
     

>    	Power sats have been discussed here and there, but to what 
>    	purpose do people put their power ? Answer: A big chunk of it 
>    	goes to make them confortable, in unconfortable climates.
 
Isn't this too much of a generalization?  I happen to like cold climates, others
like warm climates.  How do you determine what is the proper climate for
EVERYONE.

In addition to the previous negative comments I would like ot add the following:


>Objectives:
>-----------


>Storms:  Destroy them or deviate them before they do any harm.

This is a highly anthropocentric viewpoint.  Harm to whom?  Since
you are only defining harm as it pertains to humans, you are negelecting
the majority of the ecosphere.

>Deserts:  Get rid of them.

This is very sad.  Deserts are beautiful places.  The attitude of
"if it doesn't serve some practical purpose, get rid of it" (which is
contrary to the reality of the desert) is one of the reasons our
environment is so messed up now.

>Cold lattitudes: Warm them up.
>Hot latitudes:	Cool then down as needed.

I'm curious about what you plan to do with all of the water in the polar
ice caps when you start messing with the global temperatures?  Do you
really think we can control the temperature well enough to avoid
serious shifts in sea levels?


Gains:
------

I don't really know whether the gains you mentioned could actually
be achieved. But I will say about the last one:

>Better places to live.


According to whom???????

JT          

    	There is already a Topic devoted to weather control in the
    LDPSCI::METEOROLOGY Conference.
    
    	Press the KP7 or SELECT key to add METEOROLOGY to your Notebook.
    
    	Larry
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-4  
Date: 1 Sep 89 16:04:26 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
    * GMS-4 *              
                    
    Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-4
                         
    Outline of Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-4
                        
    GMS-4 is a spin-stabilized satellite. It consists of a despun
section and a 100-rpm rotating spin section. The spin section contains
the Visible and Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer (VISSR), electronic devices, 
etc., while the despun section holds the Earth-oriented antennas. 
                       
    Purpose and History        
                    
    GMS series have been developed to contribute to the improvement of
Japan's meteorological services and the development of weather
satellite technology. The satellites have been used for the World
Meteorological Organization's World Weather Watch Program which is
sustained by five geostationary satellites, etc. The first satellite
in this series was launched by a U.S. Delta rocket in July 1977.
However, the GMS-2 and the GMS-3 are launched by Japanese N-II rockets
in August 1981 and August 1984, respectively. The GMS-4 is now being
developed by NASDA (National Space Development Agency of Japan). 
                    
    Major Characteristics
                      
    Shape: Cylindrical, Diameter: 214.6cm, Height: (before AKM separation) 
           444.1cm, (after) 345.1cm                 
 
    Weight: About 725kg (at launch)
            About 325kg (beginning of life)
                     
    Attitude Control: Spin-stabilized
                 
    Life: five years or longer                
                 
    Launch Vehicle: H-I                  
                    
    Launch Site: Tanegashima Space Center            
                         
    Launch Window: August 1 - August 27  04:30-07:00 JST (UT+9h)
			      August 28- September 14 04:00-06:00 JST
								   
    Orbit: Geostationary orbit 140d(E) longitude
						
    Visible and Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer
					 
    The Visible and Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer (VISSR) is used to
obtain visible and infrared spectrum mappings of Earth and its cloud
cover with a specially designed optical telescope and detector system.
A full imagery of Earth disk can be obtained every 30 minutes
utilizing the spacecraft's 100 rpm spin motion for west-east scans and
2500 steps (140 microradians each) of motor actuated rotation of VISSR
mirror for north-south scans. 
						  
    Feature and Function
					
    The main mission of the GMS-4 is to utilize the Visible and
Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer (VISSR) to obtain the imagery of Earth
from a geostationary orbit for observations of the cloud distribution
and the other meteorological phenomena.  Earth pictures (cloud
distribution) can be taken every 30 minutes simulataneously in both
visible and infrared band.  Resolution of the images (at the
subsatellite point) is 1.25 kilometers in the visible and 5 kilometers
in the infrared. 						  

    Communication Subsystem
                          
    The GMS-4 communication subsystem consists of antenna, rotary
joint, primary and redundant S band, UHF, and USB receivers and
transmitters. Either the primary or redundant units can be activated
by ground command, except for the USB receivers which are always kept
"on". The communication subsystem is divided into three groups: S band
transponder, UHF transponder, and USB tranponder. 
                                
    Space Environment Monitor (SEM)
						 
    The Space Environment Monitor (SEM) measures the flux of three
kinds of solar particles (protons, alpha particles, and electrons) by
the amount of energy absorbed in five silicon detectors. Energetic
particles entering detectors deposit their energy, creating charge
pulses proportional to the energy absorbed. The categorized energy
pulses are then counted and sent to the telemetry subsystem. 

wow what a can of worms you opened up here. assuming that we can do it
and that's a big asumption, who would you trust to do it? would it be a demo-
cracy? where people voted what they wanted for weather, would you really
trust any system of govt. with this kind of power( even our own, a state
which can't even balance its own checkbook)?

i could see some specific good uses like diverting hurricanes so they stay
off the coast but what if there's a mistake and hurricane bimbo slamms into
new york with 240mphs winds. lawyers would sexually climax over the damage
suits over that one!

first we are not technologically mature, second we are not socially
 or politically mature enough for this kind of control.

mind you the person writing this has advocated playing thermonuclear billard
balls with astroids so we could have all the iron ore and oil shale we could
ever possibly need!

if you want weather control put a geodesic dome over boston, or build an
arcology, or until then hang out at the emerald square mall;')
pete

First of all thank you for all your replies, even if negative. I guess all
the people who agree with me didn't bother to enter it here. 

That makes the count // yes = 99 996, no = 4    ... (-;

Now to reply to some of the points the nay sayrs brough up:

I see a Weather control program starting small.  First doing things like
lighting cities, preventing dangerous hurricanes, etc. Then as the number
of orbital mirrors/shadows grows, people see its benefits, and experience
with the system increases. The system will increase as well, until everything
that people want/need done is done.

This will not include foolish things like melting the ice caps, etc. Changes
should be done inteligently. After all the Earth is already habitable, but it 
can use an improvement, after all nothing is perfect and that includes mother 
Earth. 

To people who say that is messing up the ecology, enviroment, etc. I say
THAT includes us and our works. If you want humans to affect these things no 
more then an animal species would, then you are saying we should play god, and
that we should go live naked into the woods, because everything we did since
then has affected the ecology and the enviroment. (I look forward to see you
following your beliefs to their ultimate logical conclution)


Re .1  (Tom Dahl)   **************************************

>Who wants light 24 hours a day?  Maybe the police forces do; not me, not
>astronomers, not farmers, not lots of people.  Who wants to even out the
>temperature fluctuations (diurnal and seasonal)?  Not sportsmen, to a large
>extent not farmers, certainly not me.  Clean smog by blowing it away?  I've
>heard of sweeping dirt under the rug....

I wasn't thinking of lighting up cities to day light levels at night. Maybe
2 or 3 times full moon level, it should be much better then current public 
ilumination and less of a bother.

As for the other comments. There is more warm sports fans then cold sports
fans.  And what farmer wouldn't want something that made is life that much
more secure and productive. (Besides think of all the extra people that 
could be feed. People are starving out there.)

Anyway this is all besides the point. Shouldn't you let the people decide 
what they want for themselves. I content myself with presenting them with 
the possibilities.

Re .2 ( Drew Lepage)  ******************************************

>    Personally I
>    think that any large scale weather control is beyond our ability to
>    control, would use far more energy than it now takes to heat and light
>    our cities, and would destroy and alter habitats world wide.
>    	Weather is inherently unpredictable. 

The amount of energy it takes is irrelevant, its access that counts. And
building km long mirrors in orbit is not that difficult since they would be
very thin. Later Thousand Km mirrors shouldn't give much of a problem either,
not when you compare the benefits to the cost.

As for weather being unpredictable. Are weather forecasts I hear all the
time on TV and Radio magic then ?  Besides you can predict something that
much better when you have control over it. For example I predict that after
I finish this I am going home (easy hei) but much more difficult if tried
to predict what you will do (I control myself but not you).

Re .3 (J. Traphagan)  **********************************************     

You seem to be saying that I would destroy the beatifull on Earth, and that
I would do this against everybody's wishes.

To that I say. That I will not.  And that if its against everybody's wishes
then this will never come to past. Besides this can be a selective thing, you
can do lots of things localy without affecting the rest of the world very much.

And you are forgetting lots of people out there (most of them in my opinion
would be for this). People who like warm weather, or who like living easier,
or who don't like to starve or be frozen to death, etc.

Re .6 (Pete Stolos)   *******************************************

>wow what a can of worms you opened up here. assuming that we can do it
>and that's a big asumption, who would you trust to do it? would it be a demo-
>cracy? where people voted what they wanted for weather, would you really
>trust any system of govt. with this kind of power( even our own, a state
>which can't even balance its own checkbook)?

Well its a lots less scary to trust governaments to do this, then to play
nuclear ping-pong with all our lives. After all even if everything went wrong
just by stopping we could have current climate back. Not so in a nuclear war.

RE:           <<< Note 561.7 by MAYDAY::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >>>

>That makes the count // yes = 99 996, no = 4    ... (-;

Glad to see you have a sense of humor!

>If you want humans to affect these things no 
>more then an animal species would, then you are saying we should play god, and
>that we should go live naked into the woods, because everything we did since
>then has affected the ecology and the enviroment. 

Certainly true that Man has already had a great impact on the world's ecology;
much greater that I feel comfortable with.

>(I look forward to see you
>following your beliefs to their ultimate logical conclution)

Nothing is absolute, at least I hope not.  One logical conclusion is to live
naked in the woods using only our bare hands and feet.  The other is to kill
all other life forms (because even helpful ones like cattle are unpredicable
to a degree; people could make synthetic food so much more effectlively), cover
the planet in steel, and live like robots till the end of time.

I would choose neither.

>I wasn't thinking of lighting up cities to day light levels at night. Maybe
>2 or 3 times full moon level, it should be much better then current public 
>ilumination and less of a bother.

Who knows what effect even that would have on the flora and fauna?

>There is more warm sports fans then cold sports
>fans.

Ok, all skiers burn your skis.

>And what farmer wouldn't want something that made is life that much
>more secure and productive. (Besides think of all the extra people that 
>could be feed. People are starving out there.)

Most crops depend on the thermal and light variation for proper growth.  That's
what I was alluding to when I claimed that farmers would not all like universal
75 degree temps or whatever.  People are starving today.  Different people are
also simultaneously destroying hundreds upon hundres of tons of food ever day.
I believe that the US Government pays in the billions of dollars a year for
farmers in this country to not grow/produce things.  The bottom line is that
there is plenty of food capacity now.  It's distribution and the like which has
not been worked out.

>Anyway this is all besides the point. Shouldn't you let the people decide 
>what they want for themselves. I content myself with presenting them with 
>the possibilities.

This reminds me of an infamous quote, but I can't think by whom.

>The amount of energy it takes is irrelevant, its access that counts. And
>building km long mirrors in orbit is not that difficult since they would be
>very thin. Later Thousand Km mirrors shouldn't give much of a problem either,
>not when you compare the benefits to the cost.

This makes it sounds almost trivial, which I have a hard time believing.

>Besides this can be a selective thing, you
>can do lots of things localy without affecting the rest of the world very much.

Ask a meteorologist or oceanographer if this is true.

>After all even if everything went wrong
>just by stopping we could have current climate back.

I disagree entirely.  I think there is an almost unbelievable amount of
momentum in the biosphere; change it and the effects will ripple for a very
long time.
						-- Tom

>>Anyway this is all besides the point. Shouldn't you let the people decide 
>>what they want for themselves. I content myself with presenting them with 
>>the possibilities.
>
>This reminds me of an infamous quote, but I can't think by whom.
    
    The thing that springs to mind for me is "Give 'em enough rope..."
    
    The notion of altering the environment by today's civilization is
    ludicrously irresponsible.  We haven't the knowledge to competently
    begin to do this sort of thing.  And I'm not refering to the technology
    to implement the systems.  I'm refering to the planetary knowledge of
    how the whole thing works.
    
    We're not even *trying* to change the environment and we're screwing it
    up all over the place anyway.
    
John

Re .7


>You seem to be saying that I would destroy the beautiful on Earth, and that
>I would do this against everybody's wishes.

Well, if your attitude is "Deserts: get rid of them", then yes, I do think
you will be destroying some of the beautiful on Earth.  I did not say,
however, that it would be against "everybody's" wishes.  It certainly is not
against your wishes, but it is against MY wishes. And there's the rub.  

I'm not the one forgetting lots of people.  The term "everybody" is a
generalization that doesn't wash.  Neither you nor I can determine
the wants of everybody--or even a large majority.  And how do you determine
"everybody's" wishes?  Have a worldwide vote?  We don't have the political
maturity (as was mentioned in another reply) to do this.  And even if we
could, what would you do if there was a 51% majority in favor?  What about
the other 49%?

>And you are forgetting lots of people out there (most of them in my opinion
>would be for this). People who like warm weather, or who like living easier,
>or who don't like to starve or be frozen to death, etc.

You are using extremes here when this is an area of numerous levels.  It isn't
a matter of "people who like warm weather" versus those few of us
who like "to starve or be frozen to death".  Obviously, few (I hesitate
to say nobody) would choose the latter.  The problem is with all of
the people in between.  How do you gain consensus?  You states that
we can vary the climate for different tastes. The world already does this
without our noble help--if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Finally, in my opinion, there is a certain beauty to the randomness
with which nature works.  It is not "perfect" as you wish it to be. But
I think you are defining perfect as predictable and consistent.  I would
not view a world of predictability as perfect--I would view it as
bland, mediocre, boring...

JT

As I mentioned in the previous discussion of weather control from space, 
anything that tinkers with the Earth's radiation budget is extremely dangerous
with our current level of knowledge. The slight increase in incoming radiation
(I mean primarily heat) that would likely result from mirrors in space could
have disastrous effects that may not be reversible by the time they are
detected.

Eventually we will understand this well enough and may have sufficient 
monitoring in place to consider it, but even 'minor' control such as diverting
a hurricane could have all manner of side effects (as some of the people playing
with cloud seeding found out years ago).

Assuming that these problems are solved, you still have to deal with the
problems raised in previous replies. 

Who would YOU trust to run such an operation? To decide what needs 'improving'?
To decide whose crops need not flower this year as a result of 20 hours of
sunlight a day?

gary

Re:.7
	There are a lot of things I can say in rebuttal to your reply and 
many have already been covered. First off let me start by saying that this
argument has two parts: one is should we do it and the other is can we do it.

Should we do it?
	As has been brought up in previous replies, the human race does not
have the political system needed to decide what the weather should be 
from one place to another. Quite simply what is one man's heavan is another
man's hell. While there may be some good to come out of weather control 
for food production, energy needs, etc. there could very well be a multitude
of economic problems and possibly out right economic upheaval.
	As far as the enviroment and ecological diversity are concerned,
we are faced with a choice of morality. If I understand your reply correctly, 
you beleive that man is a part of nature and therefore anything man does 
including significantly altering the climate and destroying whole ecosystems 
is fine since "nature" in the form of man is doing the change. On the other 
hand, your perception of people who wish to perserve the enviroment is that 
they are a bunch of hypocrites since man's activities inevitably affect the 
enviroment. You are entitled to your own opinion in these matters and I 
know that anything that I say will not change your mind, BUT I believe that
man can continue to advance in such a way that the enviroment is not altered
to the extent that we lose a significant amount of ecological diversity. I
believe that it is immoral to to proceed otherwise. This is my sincer belief
and the weather control scheme that you advocate will have to deal with 
people who hold opinions such as my own as well as millions of other opinions.
Weather control can only take place through consensus and there is none 
forth coming in the forseeable future as this debate demonstrates.
	(And by the way, I would love to meet the 99,996 people that you 
have talked to that advocate the type of weather control that you wish for.)

Can we do it?
	As I said in my original reply, weather control cannot be accomplished
with any sort of long term certainty. Your statement that "you can predict
something...much better if you have control over it" shows that you totally
miss the point I was making. Whether MAN supplies the input or NATURE supplies
the input makes absolutely no difference: the outcome is NOT predictable
with any great degree of certainty especially not to the degree needed to 
continually control the weather.
	As far as your remark about today's weather reports, they are only
just so accurate. Can the weather man tell me what the temperature will be
at my home today at a particular time with any precision? Can he tell me 
when each cloud will pass over head and how opaque it will be? Can he tell
me exactly when that winter storm is going to hit and tell me much rain or
snow I will get? Today's weather predictions are only just so accurate. They
can make predictions to within a few degrees of the high teperature for the
day over an area a few tens of miles across; they can make estimates of average
rainfall from a storm within a few tens of percent BUT this is the limit of
their accuracy! Just this past winter, the meteorologists did not get a 
single winter storm prediction correct AT ALL!!!!(at least not here in 
north eastern Mass.)
	Part of this problem is that the detailed information and the computing
power needed to generate predictions from it are not yet available. But, 
even when they are they will still be only just so accurate since the atmosphere
is an enormously complicated non-linear system. In such a system, the smallest
uncertainty in measurement (and there is ALWAYS uncertainty) can very easily
change the outcome of your predictions. (I would seriously suggest that you
read the book "Chaos" by James Gelick to get a better understanding of
non-linear systems.)
	Finally before I finish my rebuttal I would like to throw a monkey 
wrench into your prediction about what you did after you finished your reply:
I'm sure you did make it home just as you predicted however there was still
the very real possibility that you could have been struck by another car and
killed (God forbid) or have some other accident. At the other extreme you could 
have been kidnapped by Green Peace extremists and held for ransom in your office
until Digital stop using paper made from trees cut down in certain Federal
tracts of land and so on.
	Life like the weather is chaotic; you can make some broad general
predictions of the future outcome but there is no way you will get all the 
details correct and one of those details can wipe out any prediction.

				Drew

I am hurt .. (-: ..well not hurt but atonished that the same people that 
call me an extremist go to such extremes.

One says that you have to be able to predict where every atom in the 
atmosfere is and what it is doing. In order to have a viable weather
control.

Another, well. I am not going to spend my time paraphrasing people.
But here is my rebutal to some of the points in your rebutals.

I consider the Earth the home of the human race. And I think the human
race should do what it wants with it, the same as each of us does in
his own home. I wouldn't want my home dirty or polluted or made unlivable,
and I sure as hell would like a nice garden. But on the other hand if I 
decide to put in some more lights, or a heater, or an air-conditioner
why shouldn't I.

Your point that everybody cannot have what it wants is a valid one. But
if the people on the Sahara desert decide they don't want it a desert,
why should they stop just because you don't like it. Its theirs isn't it,
if they vote on it, if its found out to be possible without any major
side effects, why shouldn't they do it.

The other thing is, if 80% of the US people decide they want nice warm
winters (assuming it has beeen found a viable thing to do) should they not 
do it simply because 20% of the people are agains't it. My opnion is they
should do it, simply because the 20% want things to stay as they are,
its no reason to stop from doing something. 80% happy people is better
then 20% happy people, everybody can't have everything they want and that
is why democracy was invented.

Gil

>I consider the Earth the home of the human race. And I think the human
>race should do what it wants with it, the same as each of us does in
>his own home. I wouldn't want my home dirty or polluted or made unlivable,
>and I sure as hell would like a nice garden. But on the other hand if I 
>decide to put in some more lights, or a heater, or an air-conditioner
>why shouldn't I.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement.  I, and others who have replied (I 
think), feel that the Earth is home to several species--it is not the private
preserve of the human race.  It isn't simply OUR home, and thus we
don't have the moral right to adjust it to fit only our needs.  I do not
believe that we own the Earth.  This disagreement is beyond resolution.  


>Your point that everybody cannot have what it wants is a valid one. But
>if the people on the Sahara desert decide they don't want it a desert,
>why should they stop just because you don't like it. Its theirs isn't it,
>if they vote on it, if its found out to be possible without any major
>side effects, why shouldn't they do it.

The reason is simple.  It's the same as the reason people in the U.S. are
so concerned because people in Central America are destroying the rain forests.
If you destroy or alter one part of the ecosystem, you will alter 
other parts of it.  Do the people on the Sahara have a right to 
eliminate the desert at the cost of people in the Ukraine (or some 
other place)?  Decisions of this magnitude cannot just be made 
unilaterally. And, as has been stated several times, we lack the 
political maturity to deal with these sorts of decisions at this stage of 
our development.

>The other thing is, if 80% of the US people decide they want nice warm
>winters (assuming it has beeen found a viable thing to do) should they not 
>do it simply because 20% of the people are agains't it. My opnion is they
>should do it, simply because the 20% want things to stay as they are,
>its no reason to stop from doing something. 80% happy people is better
>then 20% happy people, everybody can't have everything they want and that
>is why democracy was invented.


80% might be an acceptable number for decisions of this sort.  However,
you missed the point.  It's not 80% of the people in the US, it's 80% of 
the people in the world!  You have to be able to include everybody, 
worldiwide, in such a scheme.  I can't imagine gettig that sort of worldwide
agrement at this stage in human political evolution.  Also, you didn't address
the question of what happens if you get a 51% for 49% against.  Do you
compromise and make the worldwide temperature 60 degrees instead of 70?

JT

RE:          <<< Note 561.13 by MAYDAY::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >>>

I'd like to let this topic rest, but I just can't yet.

>I consider the Earth the home of the human race. And I think the human
>race should do what it wants with it, the same as each of us does in
>his own home.

Reply 14 expressed my sentiments on this well; ditto.

>if the people on the Sahara desert decide they don't want it a desert,
>why should they stop just because you don't like it. Its theirs isn't it

No it is not theirs.
						-- Tom

    I agree this is a fundamental difference. But could you explain
    your points of view a bit before you sign off. If you think
    its not relevant to this discution please mail me directly.
    
    1-  What do you see as the ideal co-existence between man and the
    	rest of nature (what is man allowed to take and to use, etc).
    
    2-  Its clear the human race has already taken/stolen a lot. Should
    	we give it back or live with these stolen goods.
    
    3-  How do you integrate this belief, with your own life as the
    	bigest thief and user of stolen goods of all time. Ecologicaly
        speaking (from your point of view) this is what modern 
    	industrialized man is.
    
    Thanks in Advance,	Gil

    I, too, would like to let this rest, but it is really annoying me.

I want to add a further response to .13.  You say:

>I consider the Earth the home of the human race. And I think the human
>race should do what it wants with it, the same as each of us does in
>his own home.

As I think about it, the logic behind this reasoning is fallacious.
This analogy doesn't wash because you can't simply "do what [you] want
in [your] own home."  Suppose you live in an apartment complex.  What
happens if you turn your stereo up very loud at 3:00 in the morning?
First, your neighbors will ask you to turn it down.  If that fails,
they will call the police to enforce laws against disturbing the peace.  
Or suppose you live in an antique house in a neighborhood of other antique
houses.  You will probably not be legally allowed to paint your house 
bright blue with oragne stripes because it will destroy the environment 
of the neighborhood and its historical value.  

Or, suppose you own a condo and decide to burn it.  I'm not
sure that there is any law against burning your own property, but
there is certainly a moral imperative against putting the other condo
owners at risk of spreading fire and smoke damage.  

POINT:  Even if your comment were true, and we owned the Earth, your analogy
doesn't hold water.  Humanity has neighbors on the Earth just like
humans have neighbors in their homes--and in the same was we have
at least a moral obligation to consider their lives as well as our own.
Even in our homes we do not live without limits and restrictions upon
our actions.  

POINT:  The sort of short-sighted, selfish behaviour you are advocating
is precisely the reason behind the environmental mess we are in now.  I do
not advocate a "return to nature" as a solution to our environmental problems.
Nor do I advocate "control over nature".  Rather I would like to see
cooperation between humanity and the environment in which humanity lives
and upon which it depends.  Your proposal puts us in even greater
conflict with nature than we already are--we would constantly be fighinting
with nature to control its processes.  If you follow the logic you
have presented--that humanity is part of nature--then you must also say
that nature is a part of humanity.  They intermingle.  Thus, the seasons,
climactic changes, and the chaotic elements that are found in nature are
also a part of us.  To eliminate/change these things is to change (and
if a mistake is made, possibly eliminate) ourselves.  In other words, 
to place oursleves in conflict with nature, essentially puts us at 
odds with our own best interests.    

Well, I've said enough...I could go on about this, but I don't wish to 
begin rambling.  

JT

Gil,

I think that your questions are very relevant to this
discussion because these are the types of assumptions about
our relationsip to nature that must be resolved before
any sort of project like the one you envision could be
seriously considered.  

Thus, I will attempt to explain my own postion.

    
>    1-  What do you see as the ideal co-existence between man and the
>   	rest of nature (what is man allowed to take and to use, etc).
 
I began to answer this in the last message (which I entered at the same
time you were entering yours).  I would agree with your premise that
humanity is part of nature.  However, as I stated in .18, I also
feel that nature is part of humanity.  Although I do not really believe in
ideal conditions, I would say that I think a better situation than the
one we have now (or the one you propose) would be one in which we
recognize that the very things you wish to eliminate/control in
nature are parts of our needs.  The uncertainty and unpredictiability
you wish to eliminate is part of nature and, thus, ourselves.  I believe
that to eliminate these things is to place us in psychological conflict
with nature, and consequently (since we are part of nature) with ourselves.

But I won't deny the fact that while we are part of nature, we also
have the ability to separate ourselves from nature.  We can take the
stance of objectivity (within limits); we can stand back from some
realms of reality (the realm to which classical mechanics applies, for example)
and have a reasonable degree of certainty about predictability of 
events within that realm.

The point is that we need to find a balance where we can understand the
places in which we can operate from an objectified orientation to reality
and those where we cannot.  I believe that
the objectified orientation is always something of a myth, however. We really 
don't ever attain true objectivity--simply the reasonably reliable 
appearance of objectivity.  By objectifying the rest of nature 
through attempting to control rather than cooperate with it,  I feel that
we risk fooling ourslevs into the belief that nature is, in fact, predictable
when controlled.  We may be able to stretch the time periods between
unpredictable events, but we cannot eliminate them.  Thus, we would be
setting ourselves up for psychologically, if not physically, damaging
events that occur beyond our control and outside of our ability to predict.
And I do believe that they will continue--no matter how much control
over nature we might achieve.
   
>    2-  Its clear the human race has already taken/stolen a lot. Should
>    	we give it back or live with these stolen goods.
    
>    3-  How do you integrate this belief, with your own life as the
>    	bigest thief and user of stolen goods of all time. Ecologicaly
>        speaking (from your point of view) this is what modern 
>    	industrialized man is.
    
I never said that we have "stolen" or "taken" anything. You are placing
your own presuppositions upon the views of others.  We have used many of
the resources available to us--both to our benefit and to our detriment.
I feel that whenever you do anything you receive both good and bad results.

Ecologically speaking, modern humanity has stressed too much the element
of conflict with the environment and not enough the need to cooperate
with it.  As a result, the negative impacts upon the environment have
placed the ecosystem, and thus ourselves, at a certain level of risk,
greater than it has been in the past.  

Your proposal works from the assumption that conflict between humanity
and nature is the normal mode of operation--it is humanity's role
to control and subdue the environment.  The opposing belief is that
we need to completely cooperate with the environment and give up
industrial society.  Both are extremes; neither are satisfactory.

We need to find balance between conflict and cooperation in the recognition
that both are part of ourselves and the rest of nature.  To live at
either extreme, I think, risks the destuction of human ingenuity and
inventiveness at one end (total cooperation) and human perpetuation
at the other end.  

Finally, I am not advocating the status quo here.  I think we are
serioulsy out of balance now--what we need to do is find a way
to incorporate a cooperative element into our present interactions
with the rest of nature and learn to adjust our conflicts with nature
so that the results produce less of a destructive influence upon
the environment.

If you can show me how your proposal can do this,
then I would be a believer.  But you have continually presented
it as a way to subdue, control, and homogenize nature--a project that
I think will fail because it goes against the nature of physical reality.

JT

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: GMS-4 successfully launched [Forwarded]
Date: 7 Sep 89 02:38:59 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
  [Forwarded for Yoshiro Yamada.  His address is [email protected] -PEY]
 
      GMS-4 was successfully launched at 04:11 (JST=UT+9h) this morning
  (Sep.6).  It was nicknamed HIMAWARI-4 after launch.  Himawari means
  sunflower in Japanese. 
 
      Yoshiro

this is a small article i found in the book  the practical cogitator

JOHN VON NEUMANN                                                  1955

The problem created by the combination of the presently possible forms of
nuclear warfare and the rather unusually unstable international situation
are formidable and not to be solved easily. Those of the next decades are 
likely to be similarly vexing,"only more so."  The U.S.-U.S.S.R. tension
is bad, but when other nations begin to make felt their full offensive
potential weight, things will not become simpler.
	Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others
even more awful.  After global climate control becomes possible perhaps all
our present involvements will seem simple.  We should not deceive ourselves:
once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited.  It will,
therefore, be necessary to develop new political forms and procedures.
All experience shows that even smaller technological changes than those now
in the cards profoundly transform political and social relationships.
Experience also shows that these transformations are not a priori predictable
and that most contemporary "first guesses" concerning them are wrong.
For all these reasons, one should take neither present difficulties nor 
presently proposed reforms too seriously. 
	The one solid fact is that the difficulties are due to an evolution
that, while useful and constructive, is also dangerous.  Can we produce the
required adjustments with the necessary speed?  The most hopeful answer is
that the human species has been subjected to similar tests before and seems to
have a congenital ability to come through after varying amounts of trouble.
To ask in advance for a complete recipe would be unreasonable.
We can specify only the human qualities required: patience, flexibility,
intelligence.

Article        32441
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ESA News 22
Date: 21 Jun 91 08:30:36 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: The Internet
  
  Subject: ESA Press Release No.22
  
  ESA Press Release No.22; Paris, 19 June 1991
 
  METEOSAT-2: TEN YEARS IN ORBIT
 
  19 June 1991 marks the tenth anniversary of the  launch of Meteosat-2,
  the second in the series of European Weather Satellites.  Designed for
  a 3-year  life in  space, Meteosat-2   remarkably is   still producing
  imagery perfectly after more than three times as many  years in orbit.
  It will actually be able to take a "10th-Birthday" and final image.
 
  Launched on 19 June 1981, at precisely  12:32:59 U.T.   on an Ariane-1
  launcher,  Meteosat-2 was  already eagerly   awaited by   the European
  meteorologists, who had  been using  the services  of the experimental
  Meteosat-1, launched in November 1977.
 
  Meteosat-2  began service  on 12  August 1981  and it  was the primary
  satellite for   exactly seven   years, until   11 August   1988,  when
  Meteosat-3  took  over.   In  the  last  three  years,  three Meteosat
  satellites have been launched:  Meteosat-3 in June 1988, Meteosat-4 in
  March 1989 and Meteosat-5 in March 1991.  The latter two were financed
  and are   owned by   Eumetsat, the   European organization   for  thel
  exploitation of meteorological satellites.
 
  Meteosat images are know to hundreds of millions of Europeans, who are
  used to seeing them  every day  on their  televison weather forecasts.
  The images sent to the ground every thirty minutes have been used from
  the very beginning to derive each day "meteorological  products", such
  as sea-surface temperature  maps and  cloud coverage  data.  These and
  other products  are now  routinely fed  into the   meteorological data
  networks.
 
  The Meteosat satellites measure  2.1 metres  in diametre  and they are
  3.2 metres high.  
  of a mass, in in-orbit, of 320 kilogramme 
  have been built by a European industrial  team headed  by Aerospatiale
  (France).
 
  Meteosat-2 will be de-orbited in a few weeks,  liberating its position
  in the crowded geostationary orbit for another spacecraft,  and ending
  the life of one of Europes's longest living satellites.