Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <2225@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 10:41:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2225
Posted: Thu Sep 19 10:41:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 12:16:40 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> <5982@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 49
Summary: 

In article <5982@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
In response to my:
>> We are not really looking only for the least impact,
>> but also one that is below a level that we can consider as unacceptable.
>> Like I said before, No way may be totally feasable.
>
>True, although it does look like low-impact methods (power satellites,
>nuclear reactors) are within the acceptable level.
>
    Power Satellites!?!? If you think I've been ranting about
Nukes, you ought to hear me on Power Satellites!!!  The plans I've
heard about all call for large solar arrays in space with conversion
of the power to micro-waves which are then beamed to earth. Typically
we're talking about 4 times the power output of Niagra Falls.
Do you trust that such a station would *NEVER* loose stability and
start slashing the hemisphere willy-nilly with this microwave beam?
Before you start up again, yes I do know that there are some neat 
safegards against this that can be employed, but all engineering
systems can eventually go wrong.  
    Furthermore, Do you know that this can also be used as an
offensive weapon by whoever controls it?  
    All this from a technology that has had enough problems learning
how to sheild a microwave oven!!!
    Give me a break! 

>> Then the only
>> conclusion we can come to is that there is too many of us. The planet
>> will not support us!  Hence we have to reduce our population and
>> embark upon moderate scale power generation.  Before our decision is
>> made for us, and we are reduced in population by means beyond our 
>> control.
>
>The only feasible ways to reduce the population of Earth in any sort of
>hurry are a major nuclear war or a Third-World famine so drastic that it
>would probably result in a major war.  We are stuck with the problem
>for the moment.  And the only really effective way to halt population
>growth is to industrialize the Third World, so that the resulting economic
>changes will slow their growth the same way it slowed ours.  So our near-
>term power needs will grow, not shrink.

    You'll have to read more carefully, Henry. Remember, you can't
watch my lips on the net.  I did advocate birth control, the 
Chinese are using the concept of the one child family quite well.
It would not take too many generations to bring us to accepable levels.

-- 
Cheers,      Fred Williams,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318