Subject: Re: The Biodiversity Crises (was: The Limits To Growth)
From: Steve Spears
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:06:36 -0800
D. Braun wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
>
> > "D. Braun" wrote:
> >
> This thread has gotten completely off topic, and would have to be labeled:
> Harold and Dave bicker ad infinitum about perceived slights and petty
> biases, insults, and general calumny. If anyone wishes to actually
> discuss biological diversity, its depletion, and ideas on
> preserving/recovering it, feel free. We can start with this:
>
> Complete preservation of US primary forests outside of Alaska is
> supported, if the objectives of the national Forest Management Act, The
> Presidents's Forest Plan (1992), and the Endangered Species Act are
> followed. I'll also add the wishes of the majority of tyhe public, if
> polls and the slap the '94 Congress received for attempting to sell of
> federal lands, gut environmental laws, toss 30 years of natural resource
> policy (flawed as it is), and limit judicial review of these laws and
> policy.
>
> Dave Braun
I'm a canadian and I don't know much about US policy in regards to
Biodiversity, BUT my question is how can one completely preserve
biodiversity. Depending upon ones definition of it, and I have yet to
hear one accepted by all, you are talking about a large undertaking. Now
the definition I fall tends to cover biodiv from the genetic,
species(flora and fauna), to landscape/community level. Each can be
accomphlished, but how does one time them all together.
--
"I'm not Evil ...I'm just good lookin' "Alice Cooper
Subject: SOLAR GADGETS
From: Gabriel Ige
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 11:41:47 -0800
Your ultimate source for energy saving solar products: Battery Chargers
(RV, Boats, Cars, etc), Solar Radio, Garden Lights, Mosquito Repeller,
Battery Charger (Ni-Cad), Solar Plant Turner, Plant Soil Water
Reminder, Solar Panels, Solar Lanterns, Bicycle Lights, Solar
Flashlights, and more.
For more detail, visit our site at:
http://www.global-merchants.com/home/solars.htm
E-mail: solar@global-merchants.com
Subject: Re: Chicken Little nature-haters: wrong again, -- ho hum....
From: hagerp@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 14:22:12 -0500
Mark Friesel writes:
>Paul Hager wrote:
>>
>(re: SS is wasteful only because it is poorly managed, not because
>> >it is a bad idea.)
>>
>> This is where we disagree. Read my position paper on SS on
>> my website -- which is still extant. The URL is:
>> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/hagerp/hager-cont.html
>> You may not agree with my conclusions but the figures are
>> correct.
>I reply::
>You continue:
>....
>>
>> That receipt of some benefits is better than receipt of none is
>> trivially true. My argument is that a voluntary, privatized
>> system would be much better than what exists. It would be
>> fair, eliminate a large regressive tax, greatly improve the
>> rate of return, thus leaving retirees better off, and it
>> would provide additional funds for capital markets. Remember
>> the word coined by Robert Heinlein: "tanstaafl". It's an
>> acronym for, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch".
>> Social Security and Medicare are effectively a +15% flat
>> tax on the average American worker and a large chunk of the
>> tax burden.
>I note:
>I've never read Heinlein, but there is no difference between a properly
>managed SS fund run by the government and a private fund, except that if
>the government goes bankrupt the whole nation is in trouble, while if
>the private firm goes bankrupt, only those expecting to get their social
>security investment back lose. I prefer the former.
I'm sorry but your preferences are uniformed. Defend SS using
the real progam and the real figures, not your idealized image of
how it should be. I gave you and other readers of this
thread a reference. Respond to that. Maybe my conclusions
are in error -- let's hear your arguments, not your preferences.
>You continue:
>>
>> I agree that "projected unsustainability is nonsense." As
>> I said during the campaign, neither the Republicans nor the
>> Democrats are going to talk seriously about SS and Medicare
>> until AFTER the election. Commissions will be appointed
>> and after much fanfare, SS will be "saved" by cutting
>> benefits and raising taxes. Events thus far are proving
>> me right.
>I note:
>Cutting benefits and raising taxes is nothing new. Nor are attacks on
>welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid, and other entitlements.
>Nothing said during a campaign means anything to me except promises to
>the wealthy - which irritate me no end. Then I said.
Irritates me to. SS actually operates to transfer wealth from
the less well off to the more well off. Again, if I'm correct
about your politics, you should be livid. You might disagree
with the reform I favor but if you are aware of the facts,
I would expect you to favor a massive overhaul.
>>
>> >But the real benefits of downsizing is
>> >the issue.
>You reply:
>>
>> Sure, let's talk about them.
>>
>I note:
>By listing nothing you've listed quite a few more than I would.
>....
>>
>> Answered above. I'm talking about the big picture, you seem to
>> be fixated on a few programs.
>I reply:
>It's what I have direct and meaningful information about. Other
>people's 'big picture' doesn't mean much to me. I'm very narrow minded
>in that regard.
That about sums it up, doesn't it? As near as I can tell you
are a liberal Democrat who likes the arms race -- a strange
combination but not unheard of.
Now if you want to restrict this discussion to the DoE, please
do so.
[...]
>>
>> Here's another item I used on one of my opponents -- the Democrat
>> in this case. He gave a speech in which he came out with some
>> platitudes about the New Deal and the War on Poverty and then
>> how horrible the Republicans were for cutting government and
>> trashing the American Dream. I then pointed out that government
>> was around 8% of GNP at the height of the New Deal, was over
>> 17% during the War on Poverty and is 25% today. The American
>> Dream, I said, has been "consumed" by government.
>>
>I note:
>Certainly public control of government is a myth. But then, divide and
>conquer has always been an effective strategy if used judiciously.
My point, above.
--
paul hager hagerp@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:01:03 GMT
Yep, eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Sat, 04
Jan 1997 20:35:56 GMT about:
Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
>jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon) wrote:
>>Bruce reports that Northern New Zealand has higher ultraviolet levels than
>>South Island. If that same situation holds for South America at similar
>>latitudes, the danger of exposure to elevated levels of ultraviolet
>>radiation would to be greater to the millions of people who live further
>>north.
>At New Zealands latitudes, ozone levels decrease as one goes north
>toward the tropics. This is true in Chile also. It is true now, and
>has been so for millenia. That people in the north are at higher risk
>from UV-B (due to decreased ozone AND the sun being higher in the sky
>for longer during the day), is a fact which is independent of ozone
>depletion.
>I find it extraordinary that so much fuss is made about UV-B exposure
>in southern latitudes due to ozone depletion, when the actual
>magnitude of maximum UV-B exposure is a fraction of the levels at the
>tropics. And generally speaking, people at higher latitudes wear
>clothes to protect against the cold, further protecting them from UV.
I wasn't aware that people in southern latitudes were making a fuss.
I wonder why they do this?? I always find human nature and myth
to be fascinating. My particular interest is dogma. It's power
is something that I can't find words strong enough for.
>Of course, it is important that people be sun-wise. The current
>knowledge suggests that it is wise to protect the skin against the sun
>(blue light, UV-A and UV-B) at all times, wherever you live. But that
>has absolutely nothing too do with ozone depletion. If you have a
>genetic predisposition to melanoma, it is still safer (and always will
>be) to live in southern Chile, the southern end of NZ South Island, or
>Tasmania, than anywhere else in the southern hemishere.
>...Greig
An interesting aside. I'd say you have done some of your homework.
Do you consider this to be more than an aside?
--Doug
Subject: Re: California Flood Protection
From: "Michael K. Poimboeuf"
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:26:05 -0800
Neil O'Hara wrote:
>
...
>
> Folsom reservoir handled the greatest inflow it has ever
> received during this event, with no significant problems
> downstream on the American. The existence of an Auburn Dam
> would have made _zero_ difference to the central valley floods.
>
> F.O.R.'s approach makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> Neil
Yes and no. In fact if the opponents of the Auburn Dam, including
FOR, American Rivers, PARC, many private individuals including
myself and perhaps most importantly our friends in Petri's
congressional district in Wisconsin hadn't pushed SAFCA and the
Army Corps of Engineers to do Levee improvements and reoperation
of Folsum dam for flood control, the Natomas basin, and most of
Sacramento would be underwater right now.
If the Auburn Dam was under construction, it's likely that the
other measures wouldn't have been an emphasis for the Army Corps.
In the Sacramento Bee I read last week that the Army Corps was
trumpeting the fact they had just completed repairs on Folsum
dam, improvements on downstream levees, and were reoperating
Folsum for flood control.
I would like to congratulate the US Army for executing
their orders from Congress magnificently. Let's remember, that
just because they know how to build dams, doesn't mean they have
to, any more than they have to use every weapon at their
disposal.
--
Michael K. Poimboeuf mkp@sgi.com
Digital Media
Desktop Systems Division
Silicon Graphics Inc. Mtn View California
---------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: No Nukes?(was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:11:42 -0800
On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:24:33 -0800, "D. Braun"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:59:47 -0800, "D. Braun"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >off-topic newsgroups snipped
> >> >
> >> >subject line changed to a more appropriate one
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Ross C. K. Rock wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> John McCarthy wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We got by without use of nuclear arms for 50 years now. Can those who
> >> >> > want to abolish all nuclear arms offer evidence that their success
> >> >> > would make the world safer. Wouldn't their world put a premium on a
> >> >> > rush to recreate nuclear arms and achieve world domination?
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > 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 reason why mutually assured destruction (MAD) works is because
> >> >> it is the only peace treaty which does not rely upon honesty.
> >> >> It relies upon the unequivicable statement, "if you violate this
> >> >> 'treaty' of MAD, you will, without question, die." No other
> >> >> form of 'treaty' works as well.
> >> >
> >> >Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
> >> >is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
> >> >nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
> >> >disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
> >> >disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
> >> >"friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
> >> >continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
> >> >nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
> >> >phased fashion, would seem to be the answer. And a less hypocritical
> >> >foreign policy as well, in regard to human rights, would go a long way in
> >> >reducing terrorism.
> >> >
> >> > Dave Braun
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> o--------------------------------------------------------o
> >> >> Ross C. K. Rock
> >> >> Reactor Safety and Operational Analysis Dept.
> >> >> Ontario Hydro, Toronto, CANADA
> >> >> ross.rock@hydro.on.ca
> >> >> http://www.inforamp.net/~rrock
> >> >> o--------------------------------------------------------o
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> How does disarmament effect this? Stop the spread of nuclear weapons
> >> and disarmament don't seem to have anything in common. We are reducing
> >> our weapons in a deal with the Russians. That seems to be a good idea,
> >> but it doesn't have anything to do with stopping other countries from
> >> building a bomb. In fact, it may encourage them.
> >>
> >> Sam
> >
> >I thought the connection was apparent. Disarmament means no more weapons
> >production, and destruction/recycling in energy plants of the
> >delivery vehicles/plutonium, or other scenarios. Eventually, the Russian
> >mafia or the like will find it more difficult to procure a bomb.
>
> The countries that built bombs, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel
> and those that tried (are trying) , North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Japan(?)
> did so without materials or help from us or the Russians. I don't see
> that anything that we do, or not do, will have any effect on others
> that wish to build nuclear weapons.
Think about how international diplomacy is practiced. There are many
levers available: MFN trading partner status, loans, grants, technology
sharing, AND military pressure--either of a country directly, or its
enemies within or outside. This is nothing new.
>
> The
> >second part of my post is important, too; a more progressive foreign
> >policy would tend not to produce terrorist pissed off at the US, for real
> >or perceived insults. Abandoning MADD would mean that we would actually
> >have to negotiate and have political solutions worked out.
>
> What it would mean is more work for the Army. Some aims can not be
> negotiated (those that want to push Israel into the sea, for example).
True. Negotiating with extremists dosen't work. Through diplomacy, these
elements can be isolated. There is no perfect solution. What WOULD the US
do if Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or the recent band of Japanese wackos that
gassed a subway set off a tactical nuke in a US city? Nuke their parent
countries? I don't think so.
>
> It certainly
> >would not be an over-night process. Once the major powers agree to disarm,
> >international sanctions could be brought against those countries that
> >persist in having nuke weapons programs.
> >
>
> Before or after they use them on us?
Still in the cold-war mind-set, I see.
>
> >Any comment on my hypothetical? How useful are our nukes if they have few
> >usuable scenarios today? Do you think MADD works in my scenario?
> >Who does it work against then? I suppose the Chinese-- however, I would
> >think that an argument for phased reduction would go a long way with that
> >capital-starved country, so that resources could be spent elsewhere.
> >Disarmament may well take 30 years, but the sooner we have it as a
> >stated goal, the better. At least one US cold-warrior (one of the
> >ex Pentagon brass) has come out and said that it shold be our goal.
> >
>
> What works is the idea that we will kick the shit out of you if you
> piss us off. That was the great value of Desert Storm.
And we didn't use nukes.
>
> >I would even settle for a token "MADD" policy after disarmament-- say, one
> >nuke under each country's capital---with the "red button" in the other
> >major powers' control. Why not? It would be simple, cheap, and
> >instantaneous. Easy to detonate---you could set them off via
> >the internet with the proper codes.
> >
> >Of course, disarmament would require international peace and cooporation
> >more than we have now. That is an end in itself.
>
> The _only_ way you will have world peace is if some big bad mother is
> sitting on it. I don't want the U.S. to do it and I sure don't want
> anybody else to.
Well,that is your opinion. The world is becoming multi-lateral, through
trade and greater access to information, whether we like it or not. These
trends will eventually diffuse power, beyond what one country can control.
Literacy, and the ability to rapidly communicate to millions, has a
direct, positive correlation with democracy. The more
countries that are democracies, the more peace we will have.
Dave Braun
> Sam
>
> >
> > Dave Braun
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Samuel L. Hall
> >> Systems Engineer
> >> (communications systems)
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Samuel L. Hall
> Systems Engineer
> (communications systems)
>
>
Subject: Re: The Biodiversity Crises (was: The Limits To Growth)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:33:41 -0800
On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Steve Spears wrote:
> D. Braun wrote:
> > Complete preservation of US primary forests outside of Alaska is
> > supported, if the objectives of the national Forest Management Act, The
> > Presidents's Forest Plan (1992), and the Endangered Species Act are
> > followed. I'll also add the wishes of the majority of tyhe public, if
> > polls and the slap the '94 Congress received for attempting to sell of
> > federal lands, gut environmental laws, toss 30 years of natural resource
> > policy (flawed as it is), and limit judicial review of these laws and
> > policy.
> >
> > Dave Braun
> I'm a canadian and I don't know much about US policy in regards to
> Biodiversity, BUT my question is how can one completely preserve
> biodiversity. Depending upon ones definition of it, and I have yet to
> hear one accepted by all, you are talking about a large undertaking. Now
> the definition I fall tends to cover biodiv from the genetic,
> species(flora and fauna), to landscape/community level. Each can be
> accomphlished, but how does one time them all together.
> --
> "I'm not Evil ...I'm just good lookin' "Alice Cooper
It is true that there are several definitions. Species diversity is the
most narrow, and the broadest includes ecosystem functioning at various
scales in space and time.
In the United States, the National Forest
Management Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and land
designations as national Parks, Wilderness areas, Monumentts, and Wildlife
Refuges at the federal level, and various state laws all significantly
are geared at preserving/enhancing biodiversity. (paradoxically, they
may also tend to do the opposite). Also, private efforts by
land trusts, the Nature Conservancy, and private owners of all kinds. The
argument comes down to how strictly these laws will be followed, and if we
need to revise them.
Dave Braun
>
>
Subject: Re: No Nukes?(was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 22:43:08 GMT
"D. Braun" wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
>
>> "D. Braun" wrote:
>>
>> [edited]
>>
>> >Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
>> >is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
>> >nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
>> >disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
>> >disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
>> >"friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
>> >continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
>> >nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
>> >phased fashion, would seem to be the answer.
>>
>> You are going to get rebel factions to agree to disarmnment? Who will
>> you negoiatate with in the PLO or the IRA?
>
>I didn't say that. We would negotiate with the major powers, to get them
>to agree to disamament.
The problem with that is that some of the possessors may not be "major
powers". Do you know some way to insure that the IRA has not already
purchased a bomb from a Russian general?
>> When we get down to the final few nuclear weapons, how much faith do
>> you have in, say, the North Korean government? Will you consent to
>> destroying yours first, in faith that the North Korean (or Chinese)
>> leaders will then destroy their last ones?
>>
>> Do you trust the Chinese to not hide any nuclear weapons, say in the
>> suitcases you mention? Do you trust the US government to destroy all
>> of their weapons, when they have legitimate reason to worry about, say
>> Syria, keeping theirs?
>
>I guess you would be a good negotiator, for the "bad cop" role.
You could attempt a more responsive rejoinder. You seemed to post an
opinion that nuclear weapons can be negotiated away, I have posted
some reasons why this will not be possible in the near future.
I think it will not be possible to get rid of nuclear weapons until
there is a defense against them.
Regards, Harold
----
"It was much more fun to legislate than oversee. You could find many
reasons to put more regulations on. We didn't feel accountable as much
as we should have to make sure [regulations] were being applied
reasonably."
---Dem. Rep. Pat Schroeder of CO, Investor's Business Daily,
Subject: Re: 2000 - so what?
From: Richard Mentock
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:02:05 -0500
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> Richard Mentock wrote:
>
> > The calendar is nothing but notation. If you accept the notational
> > change, as you say you do, then I'm satisfied.
>
> Changing the notation of how you refer to BC numbers so that you remove a
> discontinuity and can represent things all in integers without AD/BC
> notations, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, you've got to
> keep in mind two important things:
>
> First, the practice is not very common outside of very restricted fields.
> Show a historian a year -23, and he will not understand that you mean BC
> 24.
>
> Second, changing notation does not change an origin point. Whether or not
> you call the year before the calendar started BC 1 or 0, the calendar still
> starts in AD 1.
Origin point: Clearly, the person who devised the calendar intended
the origin of the calendar to be the birth of Christ, 12/25/1BC.
(intent, not fact)
Ordinals: That makes 1BC the first year. 1999 the 2000th year.
Common people: we are common people. Oops different post.
--
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
Subject: Re: No Nukes?(was: Asteroid strike!!)
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:30:36 -0800
On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
> "D. Braun" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Harold Brashears wrote:
> >
> >> "D. Braun" wrote:
> >>
> >> [edited]
> >>
> >> >Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
> >> >is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
> >> >nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
> >> >disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
> >> >disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
> >> >"friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
> >> >continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
> >> >nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
> >> >phased fashion, would seem to be the answer.
> >>
> >> You are going to get rebel factions to agree to disarmnment? Who will
> >> you negoiatate with in the PLO or the IRA?
> >
> >I didn't say that. We would negotiate with the major powers, to get them
> >to agree to disamament.
>
> The problem with that is that some of the possessors may not be "major
> powers". Do you know some way to insure that the IRA has not already
> purchased a bomb from a Russian general?
No. But we pressure the Russians to dissarm and destroy their stockpiles.
Terrorist groups can be marginalized, by appealing to political factions
with grievances which have renounced violence. As we found with Om
(spelling?) in Japan, one need not use nukes to spread terror; if they had
been more successful, gas attacks could have killed 10s of thousands in
the subways.
>
> >> When we get down to the final few nuclear weapons, how much faith do
> >> you have in, say, the North Korean government? Will you consent to
> >> destroying yours first, in faith that the North Korean (or Chinese)
> >> leaders will then destroy their last ones?
> >>
> >> Do you trust the Chinese to not hide any nuclear weapons, say in the
> >> suitcases you mention? Do you trust the US government to destroy all
> >> of their weapons, when they have legitimate reason to worry about, say
> >> Syria, keeping theirs?
> >
> >I guess you would be a good negotiator, for the "bad cop" role.
>
> You could attempt a more responsive rejoinder. You seemed to post an
> opinion that nuclear weapons can be negotiated away, I have posted
> some reasons why this will not be possible in the near future.
I have said on this thread that it will take time, and not be perfect or
guaranteed. It is still the best option to reduce the possibility of
nukes being used. Their time has passed, as one Pentagon veteran recently
told the press. Who do you nuke when that splinter group you never heard
of sets one off? Better to reduce the supply, and get international
agreements that use will completely ostracise, freeze-out, and
marginalize any group that wishes to gain by nuclear terrorism.
Better idea?
> I think it will not be possible to get rid of nuclear weapons until
> there is a defense against them.
And this one is not very substantive either. So called "Star Wars"
missile defenses are boondoggles, which simply contribute to the arms
race.
Dave Braun
> Regards, Harold
> ----
> "It was much more fun to legislate than oversee. You could find many
> reasons to put more regulations on. We didn't feel accountable as much
> as we should have to make sure [regulations] were being applied
> reasonably."
> ---Dem. Rep. Pat Schroeder of CO, Investor's Business Daily,
>
>
Subject: Re: Space Colonies ( was Re: The Limits To Growth)
From: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 22:24:05 GMT
In article <5b2fgq$3n7@infoserv.rug.ac.be>,
fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) writes:
>: >why develop a hydrogen fusion reactor when we dispose of a natural one
>: >that has been 'on' quite satisfactorily for the past five billion years?
>
>: Because the energy from the sun (at this distance) is too diffuse to be useful
>
>I am not sure what distance you mean, but if we are talking about the
>asteroid belt, then sunlight is not too diffuse. It can be concentrated by
>very flimsy mirrors, and material is cheap there.
I was thinking more along the lines of the surface of Mars, where sunlight is
less concentrated than on Earth.
>: for massive power generation. I suppose if you could find some way to send
>: power over long distances (laser?) you could put something into close orbit
>: around the sun and then beam it's energy around the solar system to all the
>: colonies in concentrated beams.
>
>: Of course, if the beam was mis-aimed, you might accidently vaporize a
>: settlement or two.
>
>Not if the energy-density of the beam is about that of sunlight at earth
>distances.
>You only get 'death rays' if you concntrate the beam, and make sure that
>the focus is at the settlement.
>
>Even then, I think for an energy beam to accidentally vaporise a
>settlement, it will have to linger on the 'target'. I think if the beam
>is going to miss the receiving station, it will miss the nearby
>settlement too.
Well, I was talking about concentrating the beam with a laser device or
something of that sort.
