Newsgroup sci.environment 113442

Directory

In article <32bdd8cf.8662356@nntp.net-link.net>, briand@net-link.net says...
>On the other hand, I wouldn't call Indian democracy very stable at
>all. India seems to have trade the possibility of immediate revolt and
>blood bath in exchange for a constant, never ending political turmoil
>and uneasiness.
They have their problems, and the situation is going to get more touchy in 
the next decade or so.  BUT, given the lack of education, economic 
development, and all the ethnic and religious cleavages, the fact that a 
democracy has existed since the late forties is amazing.  It has been 
relatively stable when all comparative analyses would expect instability, and 
Nehru's brand of social democracy is often credited with keeping relative 
peace between classes, helping the government manage other cleavages.  Still, 
it is definitely true that this is increasingly difficult to manage.
-scott

In article <59ccjb$13gm@sol.caps.maine.edu>,   wrote:
>In article <59c37d$55j@news.tamu.edu>, kjackson@cs.tamu.edu says...
>>If the good doctor thinks his name means anything, he should feel free
>>to demonstrate where I have accused anyone of being in the KKK.
>Was it not you who used "KKK" to start someone's name?  That seems to at 
>least be insinuating something.  However, if that was William and not you, I 
>apologize for claiming you accused anyone of being in the KKK.
Apology accepted.  Really, you should be far more careful about accusing
others, especially considering how many blunders you've made to date.
>However, your character attacks on people who are not racist are dispicable 
>and disgusting,
Note here the doctor has not shown the people I call racist are actually
not racist.  It's hard to show that a man who posted the following, as
well as dozens of racist quips to try to demean, humiliate, and ridicule
another is not a racist :
    In article 
    Jim Kennemur = voltaire@phoenix.net writes:
    >In article <411107$hev@daily-planet.execpc.com>,  
    >writes:
    >> Please explain how Alan Keyes is trying to foment a race war.
    >Please ask Chris Morton. He like Thomas and Keyes is a CONSERVATIVE HOUSE 
    >NIGGER.
>and from what I've seen on the group and in personal e-mails 
>from others, your reputation is pretty much already gone due to such attacks. 
No doubt there are hordes of lurkers who have not heretofore involved
themselves in this debate who let the good doctor know their feelings.
I'm sure that his e-mail was not from any of the usual suspects. :)
Then again, the little birdies whispering in his ear were just playing
him like a fiddle.
>>Doctor, need I remind you that for the past week you have been interjecting
>>yourself into debates I was having, making claims which showed you didn't
>>know what you were talking about?
>I recall only criticizing your character attacks.
You said I was "telling lies of the worst kind" and doing so to "boost [my]
self worth."  Now, Doctor, if you make such claims don't backpedal now.
If I was telling "lies of the worst kind" then what were they?  What is
the truth?  Why are you involved in this discussion when you were
*GUESSING* that the above cited text was simply Jim Kennemur quoting Chris
Morton himself?
Why do you think you can come in and impugn my integrity when you don't
even know the basic facts?  How do you think that will affect your
reputation to see you making blatantly false claims?
>I don't think you were in any substantive debates.
So why did you get involved?
>And it's pretty clear I was right about your disgusting personal attacks.
Keep telling yourself that, Doctor.  The fact is that you made your
judgement based upon ignorant GUESSES which you will not even now
come clean about.
>You haven't even tried to defend yourself when 
>I pointed out why your alleged "evidence" for your attacks was flawed.
You GUESSED that the citation I provided was either (1) Jim Kennemur
quoting a black man, (2) Jim Kennemur being ironic, or (3) taken out
of context.
(1) is an obvious lie.  You whined that Chris Morton had used the term
"ni**er" himself, yet you failed to show him ever ever using the term
to attack or label another person.  And, none of your pals, Kennemur, et
al., can produce such a quote either.
(2) and (3) are shown to be false by looking at the dozens of racist
quips Kennemur made this past year.  I have posted detailed instructions
on how to find these articles.
Now, Doctor, exactly how have I refused to defend against your *LAME*
excuses?
>You just attack me!  It was fun, but alas, now I have other things to do...
In other words, the Doctor loves to use his name and title to sling mud,
but when the chips are down, he's out the door, running with his tail
between his legs.
I guess we see what the Doctor's name and title are worth.
-- 
Keith

John McCarthy started something with:
"I agree with jwas about the importance of human settlement 
in space to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
ideology from sweeping the world."
On 19 Dec 1996 17:45:35 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
McCarthy) wrote:
> In article <32b8f19a.3658773@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
>  > 
>  > On 19 Dec 1996 05:29:45 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
>  > McCarthy) wrote:
>  > 
>  > > Mason Clark pontificates:
>  > > 
>  > >      Surely it requires little arithmetic to show that "human
>  > >      settlement in space" is nonsense.  Give it up, John, you
>  > >      cannot escape into space.  That's for Star Trekkers only.
>  > > 
>  > > OK, show us the little arithmetic it requires.  Clark was bluffing.
>  > > -- 
>  > OK, let's start.  Since I'm biased, you give the starting
>  > point:  how many people must emigrate to space for this  
>  > to "diversify human culture and prevent any one ideology
>  > from sweeping the world" as you proposed?
>  > 
>  > I'll accept your number if it's over, say, 10 million,
>  > provided that means moving Los Angeles out of California.
>  > Or wasn't that the "one ideology" you had in mind?
>  > 
>  > Or perhaps you want to express it as X billions per decade.
>  > Whatever you wish.  I'm anxious to start the engineering.
>  > 
>  > Anyone got start-up capital?
> 
> Clark continues his bluff, not offering the "little arithmetic" and
> hiding that fact with a tired wisecrack expressing a popular
> intellectual prejudice against Los Angeles.
> 
> Nevertheless, the minimum size of colony required to diversify human
> culture is an interesting question.
> 
> How many people are required to start a nation in space.
> 
> 10 million is much too large.  There are 4 million Jews in Israel, and
> it has much cultural variety.  While the number of Mormons is also about 4
> million, when they emigrated to Utah, there were only a few thousand,
> and they maintained a distinct culture.  Many tribes number 100 or
> less, but perhaps they would be regarded as remnants of something
> bigger.  Maybe some anthropologist knows how small are the smallest
> moderately stable tribes.  Communes often start with just a few
> families.
> 
> Looking at it from the other end, the bare minimum to send to the
> asteroid would be one female child and a sperm bank.  That would be an
> enormous psychological and technological risk and would be regarded as
> unethical by present standards.  I mention it as a possible last
> effort of a group being suppressed by a Greenpeace dominated world.
> 
> One can imagine technological feminists starting a female colony with
> a sperm bank.
> 
> More reasonable, would be a few couples plus a sperm bank - an ovum
> bank too if the technology admits it.
> 
> We suppose that the pioneers have a few terabytes of books and
> journals on disk, so if they maintain their ability to learn and are
> good improvisers, they will be able to do what their equipment allows.
> 
> Our present technology goes in for worldwide specialization.  A small
> pioneering group would require general purpose chemical engineering
> equipment, e.g. they would want to extract and use copper, iron,
> aluminum from their asteroid with the same equipment.
> 
> Robots would make a big difference, even just at the level of
> tele-operation.
> 
> I remind Mason that he promised arithmetic.
> -- 
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Indeed I did and we're on the way.  I let you give the
starting number: the number of people needed in space to 
" - - - to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
ideology from sweeping the world."
Can you narrow it down a little?  You say 10 million is 
more than needed. (I assume they'll have A-bombs to 
stop any ideology from sweeping the world.)  At the other 
extreme you suggest a few couples, a sperm bank, and lots of
technology.  But this " -- small pioneering group would 
require general purpose chemical engineering equipment, e.g.
they would want to extract and use copper, iron, aluminum 
from their asteroid with the same equipment."  This does 
sound a bit more than "a few couples and a sperm bank."
One other thing: you have them on an asteroid.  Is this 
settled?  We need to know before we can start doing 
arithmetic - using the not-yet-determined numbe of people 
in the colony.
And please, let's not make the intellectual blunder of
losing sight of the objective:  " - - -human settlement 
in space to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
ideology from sweeping the world."
Great, we're making progress, John !
Mason A. Clark  masonc@ix.netcom.com

John,
I like your idea of moving into space for cultural diversity.
No great planning organization is required.
Mearly provide the transportation  at a resonable cost (i.e. give me a 
round trip ticket to Mars for less then $10,000 and I'm on my way)
If the cost of the space craft were to get into the $5,000,000 range, 
then every group that could raise the money would be on it's way.
For example:  A group of Amish  might want to establish a colony on Mars,
to get away from the madness on earth.
As for size, a well equipted group of several hundred (including a good 
percentage of young couples) should be able to start a viable colony, if 
relaiable transportation was available.
Given current technology, Earth's moon and then Mars, would be the 
logical choises.
Let's go.
Alan Brown
MARS OR BUST !

On 11 Dec 1996 18:29:18 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>I find it highly ironic that only the atheists would defend the Pope in
>our day and age. You and Brian...
And I find it odd that the so-called environmentalist would argue that
people should be allowed to starve.
The Pope's light years ahead of you, Yuri, on ethics and morality.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

=o= A REMINDER:  This thread has been going on for a very long
time and has been cross-posted to many newsgroups where it's not
relevant.  For example:
  alt.org.earth-first -- Which is specifically about EF!.
  alt.politics.greens -- Which is about the Green Party and
                         associated organizations, not "green"
                         discussions.
  alt.save.the.earth -- Which is about action, not discussion.
=o= I expect that the readers of some of the sci.* newsgroups
would prefer that discussions in those newsgroups scientific
(this is why, for example, sci.environment and talk.environment
are separate newsgroups).
=o= Please help keep Usenet useful:  don't cross-post things
to newsgroups where they're not relevant.
    <_Jym_>

In message <5921u4$mjk@staff.cs.su.oz.au> - andrewt@cs.su.oz.au
(Andrew Taylor)16 Dec 1996 10:34:28 +1100 writes:
]
]In article <58v97q$jpe@news.inforamp.net>,
]David Lloyd-Jones  wrote:
]>No need to.  Andrew Taylor has repeatedly documented what I say:
]>bureaucratically operated good-hearted programs repeatedly fail.  On
]>the other hand where malaria is introduced (his Ontario example) it
]>peters out where there is a society based in solid economics, good
]>food, high hygeine, care for property, etc.
]
]I have not mentioned the failure of malaria control programs or the
]reasons why this has happened.  I have not mentioned malaria in the
]americas.  I believe David Lloyd Jones knows nothing of malaria
]arguments and is immune to correction.
]
]Andrew Taylor
Folks
Don't know who has experience in malaria control but here are a
few practical tidbits that may cover _all_ the angles;
-malaria control requires both mosquito control and treatment
-mosquito control is only functional if _all_ participate. This
of course some includes spraying....
-mass efforts require continual mandated persuation. Education
will only go so far.....human nature
-providing a plethoria of environmental controls helps a lot. One
practice is not necessarily practical in all situations.
-economic development is only relevant when the swamps are paved
over, the pools are chlorinated and you have garbage pick up. I
had bin involved in rural, very low income projects where there
was;
1)  An initial educational component
2)  Recurrent assessment  of _sanitary_ conditions by an official
party
3)  Constant use of the village infrastructure..ie) the chief(s)
and the elders.
4)  The primary method (which was developed many moons
ago...naturally) is moving housing away from the _bad air_

Neil-Cordwell@Netinfo.fr (Neil Cordwell) wrote:
>One of the problems with nuclear reactors is that the structure gets
>bombarded with neutrons which alters crystal structure of the metal.
>After a while this becomes too much which means that the reactor has to
>be decommisioned
Or, heated above a certain temperature, annealing out the
neutron-induced defects.  In-situ annealing has recently been
tested in the US with, I understand, good results.
	Paul

Jim  wrote:
>> Ah, so you are abandoning your claim that yields cannot be increased.
>> Thank you.
>I stated that fertilizers cannot *change* what can and can't be grown.
>But if a certain crop *can* grow in certain soil, fertilizers can
>*increase* the yield.
Yes, and since much of the Earth's cropland is not getting enough
(or any) fertilizer, this debunks your earlier claim that the
only way to increase production was to increase the area of cropland.
Large increases in production are attainable by intensification of
production on existing cropland.
One wonders why you made that earlier claim, if you could have deduced
it was wrong.  Perhaps you don't *want* food production to increase?
	Paul

sjol@KingCon.com (Curtis Sjolander) wrote:
>But the average per ACRE yields that modern agribusiness produces are
>not amazing at all.  They can easily be met and surpassed by old as
>well as by modern non chemical, non mechanized methods.  I know. I
>have done it.  And many others have done so too.
Likely, you have done it on relatively small plots of land supported
by inputs of organic wastes (plant or animal) from larger surrounding
areas, with that waste most likely containing nutrients ultimately
derived from chemical fertilizers.
	Paul

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:08:07 -0700, Jim  wrote:
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>> 
>> davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >In article ,
>> >John McCarthy  wrote:
>> >>In article <5977ck$bla@newz.oit.unc.edu> davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) writes:
>> >> > That is one of the points we environmentalists like to make.  We are not,
>> >> > and can not manage our planet in a better way than nature.  What we can do
>> >> > is try to reduce and limit the negative effects we have on the ecosystem.
>> >>
>> >>1. The facts are wrong.  The number of extinctions caused by human
>> >>activity is trivial in relation to the major natural extinctions.
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks to environmentalists this is relatively true.  Thanks to people
>> >like you 1 million species have disappeared from the world's tropical
>> >rainforests alone.  I would hardly call this trivial especially when
>> >taking into account it was done by 1 species alone.
>The Diversity of Life by E.O. Wilson makes a very conservative
>calculation that puts species extinction from tropical deforestation
>alone in the tens of thousands annually. Of course human activities are
>causing a mass extinction. It seems to be a recurring theme that
>prinicples well established in the scientific community are brought by
>environmentalists to the debate, and the other side reacts as though
>it's some radical, unfounded idea, and accuse us of spreading
>propoganda.
Are you reading carefully here? Assuming E.O. Wilson is correct, how
does this back up the claim of 1 million extinctions from tropical
rainforests alone which was what the original claim is?
This is the problem with environmentalists.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

Neil-Cordwell@Netinfo.fr (Neil Cordwell) writes:
> One of the problems with nuclear reactors is that the structure gets
> bombarded with neutrons which alters crystal structure of the metal.
> After a while this becomes too much which means that the reactor has
> to be decommisioned
Or the worn out parts replaced.
You dont have to junk your whole car if the engine is broken.
> What do you do with irradiated stainless?
Carefully melt it and cast new parts to be used in an already
radioactive environment like inside a nuclear reactor?
Store it for a long time in an underground repository untill the
activity has seased and then reuse it?
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 08:20:49 EST, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne
Kulikauskas) wrote:
>> Jayne, you're a pathetic cultist. Your cult, "Natural Family Planning" 
>> (NFP) is only 1% of Catholics.  99% of Catholic women think you're loopy.
>> They use the real family planning. You, a mother of many kids, have the
>> amazing brazenness to natter about the efficacy of NFP... 
>
>If you think that 99% of Catholic women use "real" family planning
>this is not consistent with your assertion that RC teaching is the
>major cause of overpopulation.
Please don't confuse Yuri with his own contradictions.
>When I make claims about RC doctrine, you dismiss my statements as
>biased by my religion. When dlj makes the same claims about these
>doctrines, you attempt to dismiss his comments because he is an
>atheist who doesn't actually believe the content of the doctrines.
>There is nothing strange about us agreeing on clearly documented,
>easily verifiable information. It has nothing to do with our
>respective opinions on the existence of God.
Repeat: please don't confuse Yuri with his own contradictions.
Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
brian@carnell.com
http://www.carnell.com/   

TL ADAMS  writes:
[... I delete several paragraphs which do not make a whole lot
of sense to me ...]
>Actually, the original thread was about were there any real risk factors
>or concerns
>about the use of Nuke power, after some sacriney nice-nice post, I
>countered in with
>the problamatic cost of decommsioning, spent fuel stock-piling (ie
>disposal), contamination from the enrichment process and the disposal
>problems at low and
>medium level licensed sites. 
The "problems" you mention are not things which I, as a layman,
worry about.  One can "decommission" a nuclear power plant
simply by turning off the lights and posting guards.  Spent
fuel rods can be stored in the open air on salt flats, until
we can figure out how to extract the useful stuff.  We can
probably figure out how to enrich uranium with lasers or
whatever with no impact on the environment.  For low-level
and medium-level wastes, there is a _lot_ of the country useful
for nothing other than storing them.  (And, off hand, I'd think
that they would decay pretty quickly.)
>I also vented my general observation that ARC/DOD had been so closely
>entwined,
>that in my mind that I could not separate the  the really bad stuff that
>has occurred at DOD sites from the Nuke Power Industry.  The current
>bunch in the NPI industry,
>many who worked in the NPI foggy days of prehistory, ie the Cold War
>that ended
>in 1988, wish to distance themselve from all weapon production
>activities.
I don't think that anyone associated with nuclear weapon production
is at all ashamed of it.  They were extremely important in defeating
the criminals who ruled, for a time, Russia and other captive nations.
The nuclear power industry did benefit from military research, but
the goal of nuclear power is to provide clean, cheap energy.
You seem to work to extremes to find reasons to oppose clean,
cheap energy.  Your opposition to nuclear power results only in
greater poverty in the world; I will go so far as to suggest that
this is your motive, in the (vain) hope that you can cause
a proletarian revolution.  It would be far better for your soul
if you directed your energies to the creation of new wealth;
clean, cheap power is one way.
>Why would you want to destroy weapon grade plutonium?
Were we to use excess weapon grade fissionable materials
to generate electricity, the poor of all the world would
benefit.  It is plain that you don't give a tinker's dam
for the poor, but only for your political agenda.
--
J.Otto Tennant                                                   jotto@pobox.com
                   Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.

Sam Hall (samhall@airmail.net) wrote:
: > The natural state of mankind is to use force....
Yes, through their governments.  
: > If I'm more powerful than you and you have something I want, I take it. 
Yes, governments are more powerful. They take from you whatever they want.
: > That's how fortunes are made and that is what too many people mistakenly 
: > label capitalism or a free market.  
Yes, that is how governments waste the money that hard-working people earned.
:  I buy Microsoft products because I like them, not because Bill Gates 
forced me......
Well, assume when Bill earned his first dollar, he said to the Feds: 
"Hey, I worked for this day and night, and you want to take 48% Corporate 
Tax?", and to the state: "...and you want to take another 9%? That is 
robbery! That is worse than the Chicago Mafia extorting Protection Money! 
- I am not going to pay!"
I believe, Bill would be in jail today, if he had not paid, and there 
would not be any Microsoft. Which leads to the rational conclusion that 
capitalism and the free market doesn't really exist. It's a dream, that's all. 
Ernst

Vaughan wrote:
> 
> As far as I have been
> taught, man has, is, and always will have dominion over nature...>
 So everything you have been taught is true?  
Didn't the people who wrote down that little piece of philosophy believe
the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth?
There is no evidence that humans are not subject to the laws of nature,
same as every other species. In fact, there seems to be an increasing
ammount of evidence that we are part of nature, connected and
inter-dependent upon nature.
If you think you are "dominant", see how long you will survive without
oxygen, most of which is produced by a supposedly "inferior" species,
called algae.

Neil-Cordwell@Netinfo.fr (Neil Cordwell) wrote:
>
>It has been estimated that the decomissioning of a nuclear power station
>costs 30% of the life cycle costs of the plant. I don't have life cycle
>figures, but in France construction and commisioning costs roughly $1b.
>
>Neil
Neil, I hate the passive voice.  Who made that estimate?  Can you 
provide some documentation?  What assumptions were used?
Here is what a book titled "Nuclear Power Economics and Technology:
An Overview" published by the OECD (1992) states on the issue:
"Decommissioning costs for large 1000 MW light water reactors are high
in absolute terms, in excess of $100 million, although this is a small
portion (10 percent to 20 percent) of the initial capital cost
of the plant and a very small portion of overall electricity
generation costs."
Let's put that in perspective.  Suppose that this international 
economic evaluation agency is off in their estimate of cost by a factor
of 5 and that decommissioning a big nuke would cost 500 million.
If natural gas costs $2.00 per million BTU and is used to fuel a 
typically efficient gas turbine (8,000 to 10,000 BTU per kilowatt
hour heat rate) the fuel cost per year for a 1000 MW power plant 
would be about $175 million.  If gas costs $3.00 (fairly common)
then the FUEL cost alone for a gas plant is about $260 million.
These numbers are not hard.  There have been large nuclear plants
that have undergone full decommissioning with documented costs.
The whole issue is a strawman.  (Besides, there are ways to vastly
reduce the decommissioning costs of the plant by NOT using light
water reactors to begin with, but that is another argument.)
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

"Asset Management"  wrote:
>The University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, SK, Canada) has been doing
>research on this topic for several years now.  I'm currently working on a
>Master's thesis dealing with the capacity credit of solar energy. 
>Basically, we're asking the question "how much non-continuous alternative
>energy (solar, wind, etc.) is required to equal 1 MW of conventional
>(thermal/hydro) energy?"  I can't remember the exact figures, but I believe
>that wind energy measures in at around 23 MW installed wind energy is
>equivalent to 1 MW of conventional.
Very interesting figure!!  Now, can any of the wind advocates on the
boards tell me just how much electrical capacity is installed and used
on a daily basis in the US?  Can any of you tell me just how many 
windmills we would need to build to have any kind of an effect on
the overall useage of fossil energy?  (To be significant, you need to
at least beat the nuclear contribution, since most alternative energy
advocates seem to want to minimize the importance of that source of
energy.)
>If there is interest, when I obtain the capacity credit numbers for solar,
>I'll post them here.
Please, by all means post them here.  In fact, I would appreciate it
if you could send me some papers that I could use as source material
for both solar and wind.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
>

The L5 society was formed by Jim and Carolyn Henson to promote
O'Neill's idea.  O'Neill's idea was not aimed at economical settlement
of space.  It was rather environmentalist in it motivation.  Large
cylinders would spin on their axes and the people would live on the
insides of the cylinders experiencing the same gravity as on the earth
because of the spin.  They would also have the usual sequence of day
and night, because of the cleverly designed transparent sections of
the cylinders.  They were to lead idyllic rural lives, and the
contraption would have been enormously expensive.  Not all members
bought all of this.
The L5 society's greatest success was in persuading enough senators to
come out against the Treaty on the Peaceful Exploration of the Moon so
that the Administration didn't even submit the treaty to the Senate.
Well now, what could be wrong with the peaceful exploration of the
moon?  
What was wrong was the built-in globalism and socialism.  There was to
be no private property on the moon and all explorations were to be
carried out by governments.  Many of the L5ers, like me, were
romantics who imagined independent societies on the moon and elsewhere
in space.
You globalists could still try to get Clinton to submit the treaty for
ratification.
Eventually the L5 Society fell on hard times and merged with the
National Space Institute.  That in turn fell on hard times after the
Challenger accident, but I believe it still exists.  Maybe it became
the National Space Society.
Altavista gives us The Tucson L5 Space Society
http://www.azstarnet.com/~dhfred/tsshome.html
a chapter of the National Space Society.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

In article  wfhummel@netcom.com (William F. Hummel) writes:
 > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
 > : William F. Hummel includes:
 > 
 > :      Stanford used to turn out some pretty sound engineers and
 > :      scientists.  Some of them even worked for me on the design
 > :      of the Mars Viking lander spacecraft.  Now it appears that
 > :      the computer types have become experts in rocketry, life
 > :      support systems, radiation hazards, reliability, the whole
 > :      bit.  It would be interesting to hear Mr. McCarthy enlighten
 > :      us on the problems and solutions to the colonization of his
 > :      favorite outer space site.
 > 
 > : Ah, a bureaucrat.  Wants everyone in his proper cubicle.
 > ------------
 > One need not hold his breath waiting, for it appears Mr. MCarthy 
 > will not measure up to the challenge.
I'll get around to it.  I have recently posted on what we called the
Shackleton Project, which involved a one way trip to the moon with
resupply but not return.l  Did you miss it?
There will be more on my sustainability of progress Web site
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

In article <32b9e58e.2771845@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
 > 
 > John McCarthy started something with:
 > 
 > "I agree with jwas about the importance of human settlement 
 > in space to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
 > ideology from sweeping the world."
 > 
 > On 19 Dec 1996 17:45:35 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
 > McCarthy) wrote:
 > 
 > > In article <32b8f19a.3658773@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
 > >  > 
 > >  > On 19 Dec 1996 05:29:45 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
 > >  > McCarthy) wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  > > Mason Clark pontificates:
 > >  > > 
 > >  > >      Surely it requires little arithmetic to show that "human
 > >  > >      settlement in space" is nonsense.  Give it up, John, you
 > >  > >      cannot escape into space.  That's for Star Trekkers only.
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > OK, show us the little arithmetic it requires.  Clark was bluffing.
 > >  > > -- 
 > >  > OK, let's start.  Since I'm biased, you give the starting
 > >  > point:  how many people must emigrate to space for this  
 > >  > to "diversify human culture and prevent any one ideology
 > >  > from sweeping the world" as you proposed?
 > >  > 
 > >  > I'll accept your number if it's over, say, 10 million,
 > >  > provided that means moving Los Angeles out of California.
 > >  > Or wasn't that the "one ideology" you had in mind?
 > >  > 
 > >  > Or perhaps you want to express it as X billions per decade.
 > >  > Whatever you wish.  I'm anxious to start the engineering.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Anyone got start-up capital?
 > > 
 > > Clark continues his bluff, not offering the "little arithmetic" and
 > > hiding that fact with a tired wisecrack expressing a popular
 > > intellectual prejudice against Los Angeles.
 > > 
 > > Nevertheless, the minimum size of colony required to diversify human
 > > culture is an interesting question.
 > > 
 > > How many people are required to start a nation in space.
 > > 
 > > 10 million is much too large.  There are 4 million Jews in Israel, and
 > > it has much cultural variety.  While the number of Mormons is also about 4
 > > million, when they emigrated to Utah, there were only a few thousand,
 > > and they maintained a distinct culture.  Many tribes number 100 or
 > > less, but perhaps they would be regarded as remnants of something
 > > bigger.  Maybe some anthropologist knows how small are the smallest
 > > moderately stable tribes.  Communes often start with just a few
 > > families.
 > > 
 > > Looking at it from the other end, the bare minimum to send to the
 > > asteroid would be one female child and a sperm bank.  That would be an
 > > enormous psychological and technological risk and would be regarded as
 > > unethical by present standards.  I mention it as a possible last
 > > effort of a group being suppressed by a Greenpeace dominated world.
 > > 
 > > One can imagine technological feminists starting a female colony with
 > > a sperm bank.
 > > 
 > > More reasonable, would be a few couples plus a sperm bank - an ovum
 > > bank too if the technology admits it.
 > > 
 > > We suppose that the pioneers have a few terabytes of books and
 > > journals on disk, so if they maintain their ability to learn and are
 > > good improvisers, they will be able to do what their equipment allows.
 > > 
 > > Our present technology goes in for worldwide specialization.  A small
 > > pioneering group would require general purpose chemical engineering
 > > equipment, e.g. they would want to extract and use copper, iron,
 > > aluminum from their asteroid with the same equipment.
 > > 
 > > Robots would make a big difference, even just at the level of
 > > tele-operation.
 > > 
 > > I remind Mason that he promised arithmetic.
 > > -- 
 > > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
 > 
 > 
 > Indeed I did and we're on the way.  I let you give the
 > starting number: the number of people needed in space to 
 > " - - - to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
 > ideology from sweeping the world."
 > 
 > Can you narrow it down a little?  You say 10 million is 
 > more than needed. (I assume they'll have A-bombs to 
 > stop any ideology from sweeping the world.)  At the other 
 > extreme you suggest a few couples, a sperm bank, and lots of
 > 
 > technology.  But this " -- small pioneering group would 
 > require general purpose chemical engineering equipment, e.g.
 > 
 > they would want to extract and use copper, iron, aluminum 
 > from their asteroid with the same equipment."  This does 
 > sound a bit more than "a few couples and a sperm bank."
 > 
 > One other thing: you have them on an asteroid.  Is this 
 > settled?  We need to know before we can start doing 
 > arithmetic - using the not-yet-determined numbe of people 
 > in the colony.
 > 
 > And please, let's not make the intellectual blunder of
 > losing sight of the objective:  " - - -human settlement 
 > in space to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
 > ideology from sweeping the world."
 > 
 > Great, we're making progress, John !
 > Mason A. Clark  masonc@ix.netcom.com
I may have made some progress, but I don't see any justification of
Mason Clark's "we".  I misstated my original proposition.  A small
colony wouldn't prevent an ideology from sweeping the earth, but it
would prevent it from sweeping all humanity by escaping the
conformity.
But where's the "little arithmetic" Mason Clark promised?
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> In article  wfhummel@netcom.com (William F. Hummel) writes:
>  > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
>  > : William F. Hummel includes:
>  >
>  > :      Stanford used to turn out some pretty sound engineers and
>  > :      scientists.  Some of them even worked for me on the design
>  > :      of the Mars Viking lander spacecraft.  Now it appears that
>  > :      the computer types have become experts in rocketry, life
>  > :      support systems, radiation hazards, reliability, the whole
>  > :      bit.  It would be interesting to hear Mr. McCarthy enlighten
>  > :      us on the problems and solutions to the colonization of his
>  > :      favorite outer space site.
>  >
>  > : Ah, a bureaucrat.  Wants everyone in his proper cubicle.
>  > ------------
>  > One need not hold his breath waiting, for it appears Mr. MCarthy
>  > will not measure up to the challenge.
> 
> I'll get around to it.  I have recently posted on what we called the
> Shackleton Project, which involved a one way trip to the moon with
> resupply but not return.l  Did you miss it?
> 
I note:
I didn't see it either, but I'm still waiting for the PMP for this 
program.  Practically any program, good or bad, wise or idiotic, is easy 
enough to promote and defend when the details are left to others.  Nor 
do I see any attempt at cubiclization, to coin a term, in the original 
post.

Ernst G. Knolle wrote:
> 
> Sam Hall (samhall@airmail.net) wrote:
> 
No, Mr. Hall said something about the natural state of mankind being 
capitalism.  Your stuff is just babbling with even less thought in it 
than Hall put in, however, and not worth further reply.  Certainly not 
on sci.environment, so good-bye.

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> ... I think we are clearly in the middle of a die off of large proportions,
> but I do not think we are the prime cause. The question should be, why have the > species stopped adapting to the changes that we and other factors are making in the environment?...>
I know of no evidence that species have "stopped adapting", do you? 
Species adapt over thousands and millions of years.  
Hasn't most of the current carnage occurred within the past 150 years
(since the Industrial Revolution)?  This is probably too short of a
period to "adapt" genetically.
Also, there is evidence that a lot of species extinction is due to
habitat shrinkage.
Jonny

At 02:01 AM 12/20/96 GMT, Keith E Jackson wrote:
>Note here the doctor has not shown the people I call racist are actually
>not racist. 
I firmly believe that I don't have the burden of proof to show that they 
are not racist.  You have the burden of proof to show they are.  I simply 
stated my opinion that your "proof" was inadequate, and that I believe you 
know that they are not racist but simply want to attack their character in 
what you admit is nothing more than a flame war.
>Why do you think you can come in and impugn my integrity when you don't
>even know the basic facts? 
Actually, the way you've been attacking me so quickly probably is hurting 
your integrity than anything I've said.  If you hadn't responded by 
putting my name in subject headings as "professor propaganda" and agrily 
attacking me, even bringing in claims from private e-mail, you'd have 
looked a lot better.
> How do you think that will affect your
>reputation to see you making blatantly false claims?
I haven't been making false claims.  And I think my reputation is quite 
safe...maybe even improved after dealing with folk like you ;)
(rest of Keith's attempt at mud slinging omitted...you need to learn how 
to sling it a bit better Keith, if you want a job in political advertising 
;)  )
-scott

Richard deSousa wrote:
> 
> What a bunch of bullbleep... extinction of species from this planet > has been going on long before the existence of homo sapiens.  Get > real.
Well you are half-smart.  Yes, extinction has been occuring.  But there
is no evidence that the *rate* of increase in exinction has ever been
this high in the history of the earth.  Yes, people cut down trees in
the past, but they never "clearcut" huge tracts of land before.
Scale makes a big difference.

Paul Jenkins wrote:
> 
...
> That is not to say that environmental regulations do not impose costs.  If
> compliance and enforcement use real resources (e.g. labour and/or capital)
> then these resources will not be available for other uses.  These costs
> must be weighed against the benefits (e.g. clean water, better air quality
> etc.) .  In this respect, decisions about environmental matters do not
> differ fundamentally from any cost/benefit decision...>
> 
This is the kind of economic thinking that has got us into this mess to
start with.  Everything is a cost/benefit decision.  The "best use" of
a forest is to cut it down and build high rise office buildings.
Could there possibly be benefits of having an intact ecosystem that
short-sighted economists cannot see?  How many cures to cancer or other
diseases will be lost forever, for example,  due to habitat reduction
and species extinction?  
We may never know, will we?

If a 1/4 mile dia asteroid were to land in the ocean, maybe 1000 mi
from shore, how high of a wave could be created, and how big would it
be by the time it hits the shore. 
I realize this is a pretty vague question but i really have no idea
how big waves can get.
Chris

99@spies.com (Extremely Right ) writes:
>What makes Americans efficient is machine use that is proportional to CO2
>production. SO, lets cut through the Sustainable Bullshit and SAY that you
>want Americans to be less productive. You can waste at least 2 hours a day
>waiting for a bus, it might save $1.50 in gas, but waste an hour and a
>half of otherwise productive time resulting in wasting ten time the gas
>savings. 
   This argument is valid only with current transit systems from suburbs.  
You evidently have not been to cities where a high emphasis is placed on
public transit.  (they are not to be found in North America).  Buses
come very often, so not much waste happens either in petrol or time.
>The reason that US food costs less and is plentiful is the efficient
>farmer, the efficient storage and transportation, and the efficient
>processing and distribution. I believe that making the system less
>efficient, will require more energy, produce less, and result in our
>inability to provide food exports.
   Not to mention government subsidies and exploitation of third world 
countries.  Do you know how much beef would cost if neither of those programs
were in effect?
   Third world countries are VERY efficient food growers with respect to
energy usage.  They have to be, they don't have room to be wasteful.
>As a result, we would have a growing deficit. The third world may even
>blame us for withholding life sustaining nourishment as people there die
>from starvation. They could threaten us with war unless we shared our
>food. All because some computer model predicts future global warming in
>spite of not being able to predict the weather next year, or even next
>month for that matter... And global warming is still not seen in the data.
	Let's take this whole productiveness argument to extremes.  You know
how we can make america more productive?  Kill all unions, give corporations
unlimited rights, no environmental protection.  Have everyone in the working
class work for $0.50 cents an hour or less, with no pensions, no health care,
no protection whatsoever.  Large corporations would be in heaven - they 
could produce for much less cost.  Production would be extremely high.
Investment in america would be sky high since it would be extremely competative.
	But oops, there would be consequences.  The economy wouldn't be that
great since most of the populace would have no purchasing power.  The extreme
rich-poor divide would cause great social unrest.  The environment would go
to hell, leaving the health of future generations (including the rich) 
very poor.  
	Actually, doesn't the above sound like making america into a third world
country?
	This is the trend that is happening right now.
-- 
"I think it would be a good idea." 
       - Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization

An excellent book on extinctions is _Extinction Rates_ edited John
Lawton and Robert May.
The preface begins
     Hardly a day passes without one being told that tropical
     deforestation is extinguishing roughly one species every
     hour, or maybe even one every minute.  Such guesstimates
     rest on approximate species-area relations, along with
     assessments of currrent rates of deforestation and guess at
     the global total number of species [which range from 5 to 80
     million or more].  While suchfigures arguably have a purpose
     in capturing public attention, there is a clear and
     increasing need for better estimates of impending rates of
     extinction, based on a keener understanding of extinction
     rates in the recent and far past, and on the underlying
     ecological and evolutionary causes.
Articles includde
1. Assessing extinction rates
2. Extinctions in the fossil record
3. Constancy and change of life in the ea.
4. Insecct faunas in icce age environments: why so little extinction?
5. Bird extinctions in the Central Pacific
6. Extinctions in Mediterranean areas.
7. Recent past and future extinctions in birds.
8. Rates and patterns of extinctions among British invertebrates.
9. Assessing the risk of plant extinctions due to pollinator and
disperser failure.
10. Population dynamic principles.
11. Estimating extinctions from molecular phylogenies.
12. Biological  models for monitoring species decline: the
construction and use of databases.
13. Classification of threatened species and its role in conservation
planning. 
14. The scale of the human enterprise and biodiversity loss.
The last chapter is by Paul Ehrlich.  It has his usual I = PAT.
An interesting chapter is number 6.  The areas studied include the
Mediterranean, Southern California and Western Australia.  One
conclusion is that the longer the area has been inhabited by people,
the lower the extinction rates.  They get used to us.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

The high estimates of extinction rates are based on rain forest
insect species of very narrow range - sometimes a few hectares.  These
species can be expected to have high natural extinction rates.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Rod Hyde at LLNL was one of the designers of the Brilliant Pebbles
approach to space defense against missiles.  It was a based on designs
of much lower size and cost than NASA's.  A final result of the
project was the Clementine spacecraft which orbited and mapped the
moon.  The rockets and other Brilliant Pebbles equipment did fly for
the costs estimated.
Their technology and results are part of the basis of NASA's current
approach to low cost scientific missions.
Whether the same approach can be applied to life support hasn't been
proved, but I would bet that it can.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Jim Steitz includes:
     Also, the fact is undisputable that the majority of third
     world farmers cannot afford fertilizers. There is a very
     clear distinction between traditonal subsistence farming and
     modern commercial farming, and the methods are very
     different, such as fertilizer use, or lack of.
Would you claim that a majority of Indian agricultural production is
not based on the use of fertilizers?  Would you claim it for China?
I'm not sure.  It would be nice to have a source.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
.....
> An interesting chapter is number 6.  The areas studied include the
> Mediterranean, Southern California and Western Australia.  One
> conclusion is that the longer the area has been inhabited by people,
> the lower the extinction rates.  They get used to us.
> 
It sounds interesting.  The conclusion you draw about * getting used to 
us doesn't follow without a bit more information.  Can you see why not?

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> The high estimates of extinction rates are based on rain forest
> insect species of very narrow range - sometimes a few hectares.  These
> species can be expected to have high natural extinction rates.
> --
I reply:
What are your credentials, that I should trust your knowledge and 
judgement regarding this issue?

jonny wrote:
> 
> Richard deSousa wrote:
> >
> > What a bunch of bullbleep... extinction of species from this planet > has been going on long before the existence of homo sapiens.  Get > real.
> 
> Well you are half-smart.  Yes, extinction has been occuring.  But there
> is no evidence that the *rate* of increase in exinction has ever been
> this high in the history of the earth.  
I seem to remember something about.... OH YEA !!! DINASAURS!!!
I'd say that was a really high rate. And the Earth survived without EF!
and Sierra there to help it ! Imagine that !
-- 
Norm Lenhart 
Editor / Writer VW≻ - Off-Road.com
" The Best Dirt on the Net " !
VW's & Sand Cars      
http://www.off-road.com/vw/                                  
Off-Road.com    http://www.off-road.com/

Jim  writes:
> We do not have the capability to change soil
>chemistry 
I guess then my recollections that heavy doses of nitrate fertilizers 
may increase soil acidity is as faulty as the suggestion that the application
of lime can reduce acidity.
George Antony

scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> The most successful has been the Czech republic, which has moved 
> more slowly than others, realizing that step by step reform taking into 
> account political realities is the best route.
Like pretty much everything you say, this is completely untrue: 
I looked up the "CIA world fact book" on the Czech republic, 
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/ez.html
    Prague's mass privatization program [...]
    has made the most rapid progress in Eastern Europe.
(Actually I think it is one of the more rapid, not the most rapid--I
would say Estonia was the most rapid, as the IMF put them under
extreme pressure to slow down privatization and retain a substantial
role for the state, whereas the IMF only put moderate pressure on the
Czech republic.)
Clearly, the faster privatization was done, the less the suffering.
And in the next decade we shall see that the more completely
privatization was done, the greater the prosperity.
It took about fifteen years before it was undeniably obvious that
General Pinochet's privatization in Chile was working, working for
everyone, especially the poor, and that the populist course that the
rest of latin America had taken during the 1980s was a total ruinous
disaster, especially for those who it was supposed to benefit.
For the first ten years people could claim Pinochet's program was
failing, and the populist course was working, and perhaps they were
just interpreting the facts differently from most people.  Today,
anyone who makes that claim is simply lying in your face.
I expect the same will be true of the nations of the former Soviet
Empire.
As recently as a year ago you could still make a case that rapid
privatization was a failure.  Certainly the results fell well short of
most peoples hopes and expectations. 
I expect it will take a decade or two before the evidence is  so
undeniably clear, that anyone who disputes it is just a plain and
simple liar, about the same time as it took for Chile.   The facts
should be unambiguously clear some time in the zeros, say perhaps 2005
New Zealand, like Chile, made a radical change of course, starting in
1984, and only just recently, twelve years after the change began,
could one plausibly argue that the man in the street received some
real benefit from it, and it is still possible for a determined
doubter to argue that this is all just special factors, and really it
is not working in New Zealand except perhaps for the rich, even
though it sort of looks like it is starting to work.
Economic freedom gives a important minority of people, about ten
percent, immediate and substantial benefits, but these benefits are
not reflected in physical goods shipped, and do not immediately show
up in the GDP statistics.  Indeed it  may lead to a decrease in the
measured GDP as they invest in intangible things, such as forms of
organization, and try new and different ways of doing things, thus
accumulating intellectual capital, which does not show up in the
books, often at the expense of physical capital committed to the old
way of doing things, which does show up in the books.
In addition, many people who find they now have to make choices for
themselves that were formerly made for them by others, make bad
choices, and suffer greatly because of it.
About five years after reform goes through, other, more visible
benefits show up.  The phones start working.  The airlines run on time
and stop arbitrarily bumping passengers.  Electricity brown outs stop.
Free markets and competition means that the quality of many goods
improves in various ways not easily defined and measured.
These changes benefit everyone, not just the small minority of go
getters, but generally are not directly measured in the GDP.
About ten years after the reform goes through, the environmentalists
start screaming that the reforms are leading to rape of the
environment.  There are a lot of cranes erecting buildings.
Fifteen years after the reform, the GDP, infant mortality, and the
rest are starting to improve steadily.
Twenty five years after the reform, which is nearly where we are with
Pinochet's reform, there is no doubt about it.  Living standards have
risen substantially, and are going right on rising in obvious and
easily measured ways.  Young upwardly mobile tourists from the
reformed country go out to videotape the quaint and picturesque
poverty of their unreformed neighbors.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       jamesd@echeque.com

dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) wrote:
>sjol@KingCon.com (Curtis Sjolander) wrote:
>>But the average per ACRE yields that modern agribusiness produces are
>>not amazing at all.  They can easily be met and surpassed by old as
>>well as by modern non chemical, non mechanized methods.  I know. I
>>have done it.  And many others have done so too.
>Likely, you have done it on relatively small plots of land supported
>by inputs of organic wastes (plant or animal) from larger surrounding
>areas, with that waste most likely containing nutrients ultimately
>derived from chemical fertilizers.
All correct except for your last five words... So?
>	
--
Curtis Sjolander
sjol@KingCon.com

On 20 Dec 1996 03:49:40 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
McCarthy) wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > I remind Mason that he promised arithmetic.
>  > > -- 
>  > > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>  > 
>  > Indeed I did and we're on the way.  I let you give the
>  > starting number: the number of people needed in space to 
>  > " - - - to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
>  > ideology from sweeping the world."
>  > 
>  > Can you narrow it down a little?  You say 10 million is 
>  > more than needed. (I assume they'll have A-bombs to 
>  > stop any ideology from sweeping the world.)  At the other 
>  > extreme you suggest a few couples, a sperm bank, and lots of
>  > 
>  > technology.  But this " -- small pioneering group would 
>  > require general purpose chemical engineering equipment, e.g.
>  > 
>  > they would want to extract and use copper, iron, aluminum 
>  > from their asteroid with the same equipment."  This does 
>  > sound a bit more than "a few couples and a sperm bank."
>  > 
>  > One other thing: you have them on an asteroid.  Is this 
>  > settled?  We need to know before we can start doing 
>  > arithmetic - using the not-yet-determined numbe of people 
>  > in the colony.
>  > 
>  > And please, let's not make the intellectual blunder of
>  > losing sight of the objective:  " - - -human settlement 
>  > in space to diversify human culture and prevent any one 
>  > ideology from sweeping the world."
>  > 
>  > Great, we're making progress, John !
>  > Mason A. Clark  masonc@ix.netcom.com
> 
> I may have made some progress, but I don't see any justification of
> Mason Clark's "we".  I misstated my original proposition.  A small
> colony wouldn't prevent an ideology from sweeping the earth, but it
> would prevent it from sweeping all humanity by escaping the
> conformity.
> 
> But where's the "little arithmetic" Mason Clark promised?
> -- 
Now, c'mon John, don't start changing the proposition.
Now that you've fogged it up, please clarify. Just give me
the starting number - maybe that will help define your
proposition.
As to the arithmetic, I'm trying to be cooperative by
letting you specify the basic starting number on which to do
the arithmetic.  If I give the number it would be not less 
than half a billion - to have a significant effect on the
Earth and its inhabitants.  Less is just building pyramids
and cathedrals to keep people busy.  But I don't think
that's your proposal.
So let's get started on the arithmetic.  You call the start.
Mason A. Clark  masonc@ix.netcom.com