Green Party

[WIP]

Well, the Americans have committed to a manned moon base within 20 years. Richard Branson is obviously no slouch of a business man! He backed SpaceshipOne to win the Ansari X-prize and the ship is booked solid with those millionaire passengers you mentioned. He clearly intends to make a profit!

If America loses its drive, the Chinese may do it. Whatever, it will be human beings from whatever country hasn't grown too old in its thinking.

You might be happier about the carbon from space flights if you considered it an investment. How much CO2 would be saved if we did all smelting in earth orbit? For the few flights necessary to set up asteroid mining surely it would be worth it to eliminate steel factories and the like here on the ground.

It's going to happen no matter how some feel about it. A few decades too late for old guys like myself but my children might have a chance to get off this ball of rock. Once Man is self-sustaining in space who cares what happens to the Luddites left behind. While they get lessons from Mother Nature as to what actually works and what doesn't, humanity will survive and prosper.

Whatever. Time will tell who's right and who's wrong.

Okay! I'm a big fan of the space program, but this is definitely irrational exuberance! Until high tech concepts like the space elevator become feasible, there is not going to be space colonization. You have to separate what's technically feasible with what's economically viable - when I was young, magazines like Popular Science had continuous stories about how we would all have flying cars by now! The technology made it practical, but cost and crowded air space made it impractical.

The big problem with permanent space bases and colonies in L5 orbit, is that ground-based simulations of artificial environments have been a disaster! Back about 15 years ago, there was a multimillion dollar enclosed environment built in the Arizona desert named Biosphere 2. The attempts to keep it running as a sealed environment were failures; the scientists were unable to maintain steady oxygen and CO2 levels, insects and plants started dying, and environmental scientists started realizing that creating a self-sustaining biosphere would be more complicated than just throwing water, air and a few plants and animals together!

Until they figure out what went wrong, they will never be able to build colonies on the Moon, Mars or Earth orbit. And it has implications in the present debate about pollution and greenhouse gases - our Earth is a biosphere on a much larger scale. There are now more than 6.5 billion people living on Earth, and there is no denying, even by the coal and oil crowd, that we are terraforming the planet. CO2 levels are increasing, the Arctic ice cap is melting, species are becoming extinct, tropical forests are being burned out in the Amazon, Central Africa and Indonesia; now, especially adding in the rapid industrialization of China and India, I'd like to know how much our Biosphere will take before we become the next endangered species. How much environmental impact can the human race get away with?

[WIP]

The system is different, has plusses and minusses and I would have been happy to see it pass. But it didn't, it was and the Liberals didn't even have to put it on the ballot, but they did. You can't blame the public for not wanting to endorse a system for the benefit of the 3rd, 4th and 5th tier, when they are comfortable with the one they have. And those that didn't vote, shows that they weren't intrigued by it either.

Those 3rd, 4th, and 5th tier parties may raise issues that the major parties choose to ignore. The environment is a case in point! Before global warming and high oil and gas prices became a frontburner issue with the public, the three majors were able to do a little green talk at campaign rallies and offer nothing of substance. The Liberals signed the Kyoto Protocol and offered up no strategy to meet the targets. At least if you have a few of those 3rd, 4th, and 5th tier parties in parliament, there will be a chance to raise issues that aren't convenient for the Libs, Tories and NDP to deal with.

[madmax]

Those 3rd, 4th, and 5th tier parties may raise issues that the major parties choose to ignore.

Nobody is denying the right of political parties to vocalize their positions and interests. The Communists, Marxist Leninists, Canada Action Party, Progressive Party, Christian Party, Family Party, Animal Party, Mariuanuanouaeiwantmorepot party, and GP all make a contribution to the political arena. As did the National Party, Social Credit, CFF, Progressive (1930s), and even the underground separtists.

Parties and People raise issues. That hasn't changed.

The funnest party was the one with Yogic Flyers. Doug Henning was fantastic.

NATURAL LAW PARTY.

Oh yeah, the RHINOS are back....

Edited May 14, 2008 by madmax

[Wild Bill]

Okay! I'm a big fan of the space program, but this is definitely irrational exuberance! Until high tech concepts like the space elevator become feasible, there is not going to be space colonization. You have to separate what's technically feasible with what's economically viable - when I was young, magazines like Popular Science had continuous stories about how we would all have flying cars by now! The technology made it practical, but cost and crowded air space made it impractical.

The big problem with permanent space bases and colonies in L5 orbit, is that ground-based simulations of artificial environments have been a disaster! Back about 15 years ago, there was a multimillion dollar enclosed environment built in the Arizona desert named Biosphere 2. The attempts to keep it running as a sealed environment were failures; the scientists were unable to maintain steady oxygen and CO2 levels, insects and plants started dying, and environmental scientists started realizing that creating a self-sustaining biosphere would be more complicated than just throwing water, air and a few plants and animals together!

Until they figure out what went wrong, they will never be able to build colonies on the Moon, Mars or Earth orbit. And it has implications in the present debate about pollution and greenhouse gases - our Earth is a biosphere on a much larger scale. There are now more than 6.5 billion people living on Earth, and there is no denying, even by the coal and oil crowd, that we are terraforming the planet. CO2 levels are increasing, the Arctic ice cap is melting, species are becoming extinct, tropical forests are being burned out in the Amazon, Central Africa and Indonesia; now, especially adding in the rapid industrialization of China and India, I'd like to know how much our Biosphere will take before we become the next endangered species. How much environmental impact can the human race get away with?

There have always been problems to overcome. If the green movement can ban anything that strikes their fancy and take it for granted that the techies will find an alternative that will still work (like the new freon that doesn't work as well for air conditioning, or that PITA lead free solder!) then surely we can be confident that biosphere problems can be solved. Besides, if I'm remembering the same project as you wasn't that an attempt at a closed system? When you're smelting an asteroid or mining the moon you have access to oxygen and a lot more elements. You're no longer in a closed system.

Here's just a few links:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/...rd-way-is-.html

http://library.isunet.edu/Thesaurus.htm?nu...051967635914940

http://phoenix8.physics.miami.edu/resonanc...1-31msonter.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2600196

Over the last few years I'm beginning to formulate a theory as to why the green movement is so hostile to the idea of space development. It's not so much that they can't see the potential as that they view that potential as competition for resources and attention to fixing the problems with this planet! At all costs space development must not be supported.

It's so sad when you consider that space offers the solutions to virtually all of our ecological and economic problems here on earth. Ah well, some country will eventually make it if our own vision proves too small.

[myata]

Once Man is self-sustaining in space .....

You're kidding, right? If we can't achieve it here, on our home world, what's there to say it'll be any easier done in space? Pipe dreaming of some future miracle can certainly be an alternative to real timely action; will it work? probably with the same kind of chance of winning a lottery; or encountering J.Christ, in person.

We're playing a roulette, and the outcome is all but certain. At this time, less than 1/6 of this planet's population is enjoying consumpution of mostly non renewable resources, or in an unsustainable way, to the full; what will come to pass when the next tier, outnumbering us 3-4 to one, joins the consumer echelons (as they are well on the way to)? Complete with bus loads of garbage, parking lot paved countrysides, two cars per family? One of the two: a miracle that will solve all problems without anybody having to move a finger about it; or a crisis, as so many times in the history (but this time, on the global scale, as there's no more unspoilt places left anywhere on this planet) of which we, due to our short memory, or fun loving disposition, are trying not to think; history is full of such examples and nothing's there to say it won't happen again.

[WIP]

Nobody is denying the right of political parties to vocalize their positions and interests.

In a first-past-the-post election system, they are being denied the opportunity to have at least one or two members in parliament to have an opportunity to question governing members. Not that they'll get any answers! Question period is 99% grandstanding by the opposition vs. diversion, blame-shifting and just plain refusal to address the questions asked.............but at least it gives the reporters something to write about.

The Communists, Marxist Leninists, Canada Action Party, Progressive Party, Christian Party, Family Party, Animal Party, Mariuanuanouaeiwantmorepot party, and GP all make a contribution to the political arena. As did the National Party, Social Credit, CFF, Progressive (1930s), and even the underground separtists.

Parties and People raise issues. That hasn't changed.

The funnest party was the one with Yogic Flyers. Doug Henning was fantastic.

NATURAL LAW PARTY.

Oh yeah, the RHINOS are back....

And under the present system, any party like the Greens, which has a significant voter base, and an opportunity to displace one of the major parties (NDP), is relegated to the same status as the other fringe parties with virtually no support. In the last Ontario election, the Green Party took more than 8% of the popular vote, next was the Family Coalition Party with 0.8% and Libertarian with 0.2%. In a proportional system, the Greens probably would have been the only ones to have enough votes to win seats in the provincial parliament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_gener...esults_by_party

[madmax]

In a first-past-the-post election system,

Nothing has been democraticly to denied that every party doesn't have to contend with.

Edited May 15, 2008 by madmax

[myata]

I think the duopoly effect can be directly linked to the majoritary election system. Re US, UK, Canada - near the only remaining proponents of the system in the developed world. Each has two party system with near perfect record (i.e virtually no exceptions). There may even be some math model to prove it beyond any doubt.

[madmax]

I think the duopoly effect can be directly linked to the majoritary election system. Re US, UK, Canada - near the only remaining proponents of the system in the developed world. Each has two party system with near perfect record (i.e virtually no exceptions). There may even be some math model to prove it beyond any doubt.

There is little comparable to the US system and the UK/Canadian System.

[WIP]

There have always been problems to overcome. If the green movement can ban anything that strikes their fancy and take it for granted that the techies will find an alternative that will still work (like the new freon that doesn't work as well for air conditioning, or that PITA lead free solder!) then surely we can be confident that biosphere problems can be solved. Besides, if I'm remembering the same project as you wasn't that an attempt at a closed system?

No, Biosphere 2 was designed to operate as a closed system. The two full-scale trial runs that were made in the early 90's both failed for different reasons. The first, as previously mentioned, was because the CO2 levels kept increasing as oxygen levels dropped. Attempts to correct the system failed, so the biosphere had to be opened and the experiment stopped prematurely. The 2nd attempt ended before the physical tests could be studied because of a personnel problem. A dispute between crew members grew ugly and ended with two members deliberately sabotaging the experiment by opening doors and compromising the containment. This was an unforeseen problem that could also arise in future long duration space missions.

The Biosphere 2 facility is still used for ecological and engineering studies, but there haven't been any attempts since 1994 to try another sealed containment experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

When you're smelting an asteroid or mining the moon you have access to oxygen and a lot more elements. You're no longer in a closed system.

Here's just a few links:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/...rd-way-is-.html

http://library.isunet.edu/Thesaurus.htm?nu...051967635914940

http://phoenix8.physics.miami.edu/resonanc...1-31msonter.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2600196

Over the last few years I'm beginning to formulate a theory as to why the green movement is so hostile to the idea of space development. It's not so much that they can't see the potential as that they view that potential as competition for resources and attention to fixing the problems with this planet! At all costs space development must not be supported.

It's so sad when you consider that space offers the solutions to virtually all of our ecological and economic problems here on earth. Ah well, some country will eventually make it if our own vision proves too small.

Looking at the big picture, I am in full agreement with you that it should be a top priority to get things in motion so that the human race can start to move off of this rock and venture out into space. But while you're putting together your theory, I would like you to consider that the anti-science and technology movement comes from two opposing sides of the political spectrum.

In one corner, you mentioned the green movement; but it's only a radical core of the environmental movement that is hostile to the modern world, and wants us all to grab our spears and bow and arrows and move back into the forest to live at one with nature! Left wing utopianism grew out of post-modernist philosophy that takes the view that there is no absolute or even reasonably veriable truth. Postmodernism moves away from any kind of objectivity and considers all viewpoints equal. So the scientific method is no more reliable for finding water in the desert than hiring a water dowser with a magic stick! The postmodernists generally reject the value of everything that modern science, technology and culture have given us. Needless to say, this viewpoint is popular with utopians who see everything modern as corrupt and want to destroy civilization.

But, an even greater threat to civilzation has come up from the opposite side. In Christianity and Islam, you have hardline fundamentalist strains that became alarmed when scientific discovery started challenging their theological interpretation of the world a few centuries ago. First, Galileo and Copernicus destroyed the concept of a flat or circular earth that had a foundation, with stars suspended from a vaulted ceiling that had heaven, or in the case of Islam - seven heavens - above, and primordial waters under the earth. And not only wasn't the Earth flat, it wasn't even at the center of the Universe, so to keep us as the central focus of God's creation required lots of theological reinterpretations of scriptures.

Then, two hundred years ago, the science of geology began and the first geologists were determining that the Earth had to be much older than the Christian story of 6000 years. And shortly after, came another hit that still hasn't been resolved - Evolution. Over the years, the mainline churches have accomodated evolution by natural selection with their theology, but conservative fundamentalists still refuse to give in and keep raising an endless stream of objections. The overall effect has been a hostility to science, scientists, and teachers who use their material. Many creationist groups like Answersingenesis highlight polling results that show the upper echelons of the scientific community (N.A.S. members) where only 7% believe in God and 8% believe in personal immortality, as evidence for the evil atheist scientific conspiracy to destroy their religion. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

And that theme is picked up in books written by cretins like Ann Coulter (Godless) and Ben Stein's attempt at a Michael Moore impression (Expelled). The hostility towards science from Islamic fundamentalism is a big part of the reason why the Muslim World is mired in poverty inspite of billions of dollars in oil revenues; and there are advance warning signs that the fundamentalist Christian assault on science education in the U.S. is leading children from fundamentalist families to ignore the sciences, and go for law degrees instead.

Needless to say, a public that is hostile to science is not all that enthused about space colonization either! When I was on a U.S. forum, many of these people considered it a waste since the 2nd Coming and the Rapture was imminent! N.A.S.A. has had its overall budget cut by the Bush Administration, and what's left is being earmarked for prestige programs like manned flights to Mars; which they are depending on the generosity of a future administration to provide enough funding to make the mission a reality! Under the present situation, the world will have to wait for Europe, China or someone else to step up and get space exploration going again!

[myata]

There is little comparable to the US system and the UK/Canadian System.

Nevertheless, it's a variant of majoritary system in which only one party candidate gets past the post, and the votes cast for the opposition are lost.

[myata]

Looking at the big picture, I am in full agreement with you that it should be a top priority to get things in motion so that the human race can start to move off of this rock and venture out into space. But while you're putting together your theory, I would like you to consider that the anti-science and technology movement comes from two opposing sides of the political spectrum.

There're also practical considerations. Restructuring the economy to achieve sustainability, and industrial level exploration of space are both long term extremely high investment global undertakings. Can humanity succeed in both, where it's failing outright in just one? Which one should carry priority?

[Wild Bill]

Looking at the big picture, I am in full agreement with you that it should be a top priority to get things in motion so that the human race can start to move off of this rock and venture out into space. But while you're putting together your theory, I would like you to consider that the anti-science and technology movement comes from two opposing sides of the political spectrum.

Needless to say, a public that is hostile to science is not all that enthused about space colonization either! When I was on a U.S. forum, many of these people considered it a waste since the 2nd Coming and the Rapture was imminent! N.A.S.A. has had its overall budget cut by the Bush Administration, and what's left is being earmarked for prestige programs like manned flights to Mars; which they are depending on the generosity of a future administration to provide enough funding to make the mission a reality! Under the present situation, the world will have to wait for Europe, China or someone else to step up and get space exploration going again!

Sadly, I agree with you about the 'Luddites', religious or otherwise. Still, we've always had those in our midst. If we had listened to them we'd still be in the trees!

Actually, since we had to leave the trees to find new food sources as the climate changed, if we had listened to them there wouldn't be a human race today at all!

It shouldn't be too hard to maintain a sufficient investment in space development with modest financing. The average person has no idea of how small a percentage of the American GNP goes into space. The entire Apollo program to the moon, complete to every mission, cost less than the number of helicopters shot down during one month of fighting in the Viet Nam war!

We are on the verge of private enterprise picking up where governments have left off. To my mind this is the ONLY way we can succeed! Governments are too slow, too expensive and frankly, too unintelligent! Also, politics makes funding capriciously dependent on public mood. The failure of universal suffrage was proven long ago in Rome. Allow the common folk the ability to vote themselves "bread and circuses" and they certainly will, until there's no more bread and no money for circuses.

Business of course doesn't depend on political support. They are interested in profit and when they start making more money from space the level of investment will increase.

I predict that some day heavy metal mining and smelting will be "extinct" on earth, as simply being uncompetitive with asteroid and lunar industry. This is one of the reasons I've always been such a fervent champion of the issue. I think the green movement truly lacks the vision to understand that investments in space development offer us not just the chance to green the planet but access to infinite resources. If you need more power it's so limited to argue over nuclear vs. hydro dams that can silt up or whatever. If you're running solar powered satellites in orbit you just build a few more! There's NO extra pollution factor!

The best thing about it is you don't have to convince or coerce industry to go green! They will anyway to achieve their profits! A much more effective situation than that of the present, where industry too often sees greening as extra costs, particularly when not all countries have such costs and all you achieve is making your domestic industry uncompetitive and watching it die off while filthy old China and India take all your jobs!

Besides, wouldn't you agree we desperately need a "B Ark"?

[WIP]

There're also practical considerations. Restructuring the economy to achieve sustainability, and industrial level exploration of space are both long term extremely high investment global undertakings. Can humanity succeed in both, where it's failing outright in just one? Which one should carry priority?

But how do we succeed at fixing the environment without developing new technologies that provide clean energy and cleaner manufacturing? Remember, if it wasn't for the original space program, we wouldn't have solar panels for one thing! They were originally developed for satellites and the first space station. And one of the key points about the Biosphere 2 experiment in the early 90's is that ecosystems were found to be much more complicated than originally imagined! The greatest danger of the present situation regarding pollution and greenhouse gases, is that no one has any idea how the Earth's ecosystem is reacting to the changes we're already making. A complete theory of biospherics, originally built for the purpose of providing life-sustaining ecosystems in space colonies, may have a secondary benefit of giving us a better idea of how largescale ecosystems like the Earth's will react to future changes. It could answer questions such as whether there is a point where rising CO2 levels will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. Right now, there is so much that is not understood about ecosystems that it's a lot of guesswork. All we know right now is that CO2 levels can't keep rising indefinitely without leading to a catastrophic extinction as happened 250 million years ago. http://geology.about.com/od/extinction/a/aa_permotrias.htm

[myata]

But how do we succeed at fixing the environment without developing new technologies that provide clean energy and cleaner manufacturing? http://geology.about.com/od/extinction/a/aa_permotrias.htm[/url]

Sure, all good questions, and I'm not in any way implying that space exploration / research programs should be stopped. However when speaking about project like settlement of space, in the very near future, as a meaningful solution to the environmental problems, one'd have to weigh the resources (not to mention possibility and feasibility of such project in the first place; moving a billion of people to the space within couple of generations; when all we can gather now, is a handful and only for a while - this isn't even a scientific possibility, more like a fantasy, or a pipe dream).

[myata]

Here's another alarm call illustrating the urgency of the problem: BBC: wildlife population plummeting around the world.

One human generation = a quater to a third of animal populations down. Not hard to make the calculation; presuming the rate of decline keeps steady; if not, and contrary to the popular adage (not in my lifetime), we may see some quite nasty things (like serious food shortages) happening much sooner.

[Wild Bill]

Sure, all good questions, and I'm not in any way implying that space exploration / research programs should be stopped. However when speaking about project like settlement of space, in the very near future, as a meaningful solution to the environmental problems, one'd have to weigh the resources (not to mention possibility and feasibility of such project in the first place; moving a billion of people to the space within couple of generations; when all we can gather now, is a handful and only for a while - this isn't even a scientific possibility, more like a fantasy, or a pipe dream).

What makes you think we have to move a billion people into space? If you compare the situation with that of colonizing North America the vast majority of folks wouldn't want to go! Or Australia, where Britain sent her convicts and other unwanted.

Since they wouldn't want to go anyway it would be more likely we'd just ship food and resources down to them. This is essentially free - again, it's just ballistics to aim where it falls. Or in the case of solar power, we'd beam it as microwaves to huge antenna farms of chicken wire 10 feet in the air. You could still grow crops underneath it. Perfect for many Third World situations, where the country might not be able to afford a transmission grid.

What's most important is that until we actually are there most of the advantages will be things we've never thought about. No one knew what resources were in North America before Columbus. The Hudsons Bay Company was not planned years in advance of the exploration of Canada. We expect to make money with metals, drugs, crystals and medicines but until we have enough people in space doing the research there will be uncounted things we will only discover at that time.

Zillions of years ago, when fish were arguing about why evolve up onto the land they might have brainstormed up all kinds of things they might find up there. It's a cinch though that none of them would ever have thought of fire!

[myata]

What makes you think we have to move a billion people into space? If you compare the situation with that of colonizing North America the vast majority of folks wouldn't want to go! Or Australia, where Britain sent her convicts and other unwanted.

Because there're too many of us here already (if we won't change our ways in a dramatic spectacular fashion), and more are coming. See above. At the present rate of depletion of biosphere, there's at most two more generations to go; whereafter the choice would be to either move masses of people somewhere (where?) or have them lost in a mass cataclysms. There just won't be enough life left on the planet to sustain ever expanding hords of consumers out of all control. The limits will be set for us, and they are very simple: shortage of basic resources, such as food, water, fertile soil, energy.

[Wild Bill]

Because there're too many of us here already (if we won't change our ways in a dramatic spectacular fashion), and more are coming. See above. At the present rate of depletion of biosphere, there's at most two more generations to go; whereafter the choice would be to either move masses of people somewhere (where?) or have them lost in a mass cataclysms. There just won't be enough life left on the planet to sustain ever expanding hords of consumers out of all control. The limits will be set for us, and they are very simple: shortage of basic resources, such as food, water, fertile soil, energy.

You really should do a google. The population explosion idea has been dead for a decade or two. Virtually every developed country has a negative birth rate, even China. We are rapidly becoming a world of geezers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._fertility_rate

Look at the figures and remember that you need a rate of at least 2.0 to replace parents, with no margin for childhood deaths by sickness or accident. Notice how the countries with the high rates tend to be the smallest and least developed but even they are often showing significant drops over the past 8 years. Once you get lower than 2.0 you find virtually ALL of the developed nations!

Despite all the immigration, we're seeing empty classes right HERE in the lower grades! There are a LOT of school closures going on. Apparently, even opening up immigration to ridiculously high levels would not be enough to appreciably change the demographics.

It seems to be a universal factor in human psychology that as education levels rise in any given population people tend to voluntarily limit their birth rate. Mechanization has removed the need for a large family to supply hand labour on a farm. Most people no longer live on farms! When they know how they choose to have fewer kids that they can support at a higher level than more children where each receives much less.

Right now I'm telling my kids that when they grow up don't expect to make a living in building new houses...

Edited May 17, 2008 by Wild Bill

[myata]

We (developed world) are only a small (less than 1/6 ie some 15%) of the world's population. And it (the world's population) is still growing, see world's fertility rate in your own reference.

And in the meanwhile, it's developed world that is responsible for by far disproportionate role in consumption of the world's resources. I.e, given the current state of affairs, with only around 1 billion of first tier consumers, what would we do when in couple of generations, it's 4 ? With China, India and South America catching up to our levels of consumption? Will there be enough a) fertile soil aka food; fish and other livestock; c) fresh water; d) energy - to sustain everybody?

[Rovik]

The Green party, in my opinion, is a party of smoke and mirrors, not substance. The only reason why many people vote for them is because they have "green" in their name and they think green must be good (sad misinformed people.)

Here in Newfoundland, they are almost hated as they are the only one of the "mainstream" parties (if you can call them mainstream that is) that are opposed to the annual seal hunt. This even though; the seal population is very healthy, the hunt is policed with strict standards for hunting (as compared to many other types of hunts in the world) and that the fishery provides employment for many Newfoundland, Maritime and Quebec fishermen.

[madmax]

deleted

Edited May 20, 2008 by madmax