🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3o1mvt$s8k@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Croall) writes:
|> I don't mean to wimp out, but I don't think I have the energy or stamina 
|> to discuss this topic, especially as multiple forces ally against me.

Q: Why do these multiple forces ally against you?  Do you write them
   all off as impossibly biased?  Have you considered the notion that
   your arguments have surfaced here before, been carefully considered,
   and been found by many to be unpersuasive? 

|> I believe we're just going to have to agree to 
|> disagree,

Perhaps not.  I'm naive enough to think you might be persuaded.

|> because I fundamentally believe that our resources are plenty 
|> enough, and think we should be thinking about living within our planet, 
|> rather than beyond it.

If our resources are "plenty enough", then why can't we spend some
small portion of them going "beyond it?"  Do you have any idea of
the value of space-based goods and services to your economy?  The
number of private-sector jobs generated?  The impact of these goods
and services on the lives of ordinary people around you today?

If you doubt the significance or benefits, do a little research,
dig around a bit.  You might find this quite illuminating.
Never mind the much-reviled (here) subject of spinoffs, appeals
to the greater long-term good of humanity, about which you are
unconvinced, or exhortations to satisfy scientific curiosity or
the urge to explore the unknown.  First look at the practicalities,
here and now.  Remember that this has been enabled by investment;
seed money - some private, mostly government.  How much has been
recouped in taxes?  What about the multiplier effect?

Next, look at technologies which are on, or just beyond, the horizon.
Things which will mean abundant, non-polluting energy supplies; that
will allow us, for the first time since the invention of agriculture,
to actually reverse the cumulative damage to the planet; that will
offer affordable education to the ignorant, and hope for the world's
poor through wealth creation, rather than just robbing Peter to pay
Paul.

What?  How?  Notice I have *not* said "Send 'em to Mars" (I want to
save that for crooks 8^).  Pretend you're in a debate, see
if you can make a case for the "pro" position.  Now see if you can
shoot it down. Go around the loop a few times, see where you wind up.

Of course you can always refuse to really think about it, tuck your
tail between your legs and slink off.  You wouldn't be the first,
won't be the last.  If you so chose, you'd at least be free of the
illusion that your position was a reasonable one.

|> If you want to go to space and live on mars, 
|> great.  I'd rather die here, thanks.

The greatest impact of space businesses, including future manned
activities, will be on the lives of ordinary people who most likely
will all want to die here as well, and may never even think about
space.   

-- 
Philip R. Young        |             young@bunyip.ap.dg.com
                       |       Philip_Young@dgap.ceo.dg.com

 "It is the lurid intermixture of the two that produces the
  illuminating blaze of the infernal regions."

  - Nathaniel Hawthorne, "Rappaccini's Daughter"