On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:41:19AM -0600, DvB wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:36:45 +0000, > > Pigeon wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Personally, I think that the space programme in its current > > > state of development is frequently trying to run before it can > > > walk, and consumes money which would be better spent on famine > > > relief. > > > > That's one way to look at it. Agreed, famine victims should have > > priority. But a country which already spends a hundred billion > > dollars for its defense ought to spend a few more tens of billion > > dollars for a space program that could save the planet when the > > next Big One comes along > > Wanna "save the planet"? Why not spend some money on finding a way to > reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? I know it would be exciting to be > able to experience escaping to Mars with a gas mask over your face, but > some of us like adventure a little less than that.
I can think of a few off the top of my head: - run mobile power plants (vehicles, locomotives) off RME or alcohol - design the products of industry to last ten times as long as they do at the moment, and reduce industrial output by 90% - impose a 1% cashflow tax on the oil industry and put the money into fusion research - put sails on ships They all suffer from the problem that people who currently make vast amounts of money out of fossil fuels won't be able to any more. I have an unpleasant suspicion that we'll be dependent on fossil fuels until they actually run out and force us to do something else. Science can find lots of solutions, politics/greed are the problems when it comes to putting them into practice. Pigeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]