Comments on: I Don’t Want To Live in a Post-Apocalyptic World

By: giorgio gaviraghi

giorgio gaviraghi — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:02:52 +0000

I believe that the entire space program must be redirected to new goals such as capture, deflecting and utilizing existing resources located in asteroids and comets.
A small NEO asteroid, once deflected in a cycling Earth-Moon or Earth-Mars cycling trajectory, can be properly equipped and function as a natural spaceship supplying the crew with most needed materials for life support (water, air, fuel, food ) .
Such approach will reduce costs and can jumpstart a space industry by allowing affordable transportation to our neighboring bodies.
Not only, the entire Earth based approach on which is based our space plans , can be substituted by a space based one, utilizing deflected asteroids as space bases eliminating the need of starting space missions from the most antieconomic point, the bottom of a high gravity well.
The existing Orion and Ares plan to return to the moon and proceed to mars, if ever implemented , will prove another failure such as the ISS, an expensive exercise, that ate the space budget for over 20 years and didn’t give back any result.
In Orion NASA is proposing the same technology as Apollo, throw away boosters and vehicles, the need of the fleet to receive and sometimes, rescue the astronauts in high sea, at excessive costs to be justified by any society or governement.
Man may go back to the Moon but will probably not return for another 50 years like the after Apollo effect paralyzing , one more time mankind goal of reaching and colonizing space.

By: Ithaca Conradian

Ithaca Conradian — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:15:40 +0000

Correcting my prior post above, with considerable embarrassment, Bill Joy's essay 'why the future doesn't need us', was published in April, 2000 (but still plenty of time for us to digest its important message).

By: Ithaca Conradian

Ithaca Conradian — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:28:33 +0000

Thank you for an important post. Exactly as you said, what matters is understanding the risks better and raising awareness. As cynic, I would add that Bill Joy's classic essay 'why the future doesn't need us' was published in 1993. Fifteen years s/b enough time to digest 24 pages. Like John Hunt above, I worry that homo denialus will ignore the new risks, at our children's peril, absent a tangible demonstration. But the 2001 Anthrax murders, reagrdless of motive, clearly provided such a tangible demonstration. Yet, look at the tepid response to the very reasonable 2004 National Academy of Sciences Commission recommendations. Your reading list is also appreciated. Recommended as well are Wired's 'Biowar for Dummies', John Gray's 'Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals' and John Robb's excellent 'Brave New War'. Fictional adds might include Frank Herbert's (1982!) 'White Plague' and Richard Preston's 'Cobra Event'.

By: philip travers

philip travers — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:41:16 +0000

Having contributed ideas on matters desertification water filtering using PET bottles,now taken over by the Swiss ‚last time I read anything about it.I think the real problem is still on earth.I am being called racist in a blog today,because I have dared to mention David Irving’s Hitler’s War.And thus questioned the validity of matters 2cnd World War.It doesn’t matter what I have previously left and said.It is deliberately insulting to lower the creative processes.And these people are everywhere.

By: John Hunt

John Hunt — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:20:21 +0000

There is a time when people pay great attention to such risks…after an incident has occurred (e.g. 9–11).

So, wouldn’t it be better if such an event were to happen in a controlled setting? Why not actively seek a somewhat-existential threat but demonstrate it in a contained environment. For example, one could develop a hybrid flu-ebola virus and then demonstrate it in a level-4 containment facility (on human tissue culture that is).

Naturally such an event would be newsworthy as it it would be extremely alarming. Any such event would likely spawn congressional investigations, regulations, etc. Even the open attempt to create such a contained threat might lead to hearings and regulation which could help buy us some time before someone develops a real-threat.