X-Message-Number: 28365
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Nanotech, space elevator and wealth
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:31:58 +0200

On 29 Aug 2006, at 00:14, Keith Henson wrote:

> At 09:00 AM 8/28/2006 +0000, dss wrote:
> snip
>> Keith again demonstrates that a little knowledge can be dangerous.
>> Good economic times - of a specific type - and war go together
>> perfectly well (probably the best ref.):
>> The Global Political Economy of Israel,
> You didn't read the article.

No, because it isn't the right field of knowledge to deal with this  

> The people who build up the memes to start
> wars are not the ones with bright prospects.

And the concept of 'memes' isn't based upon any science in this area.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to use scientific  
concepts from the correct field.

> I.e., the US economy had very little to do with 9/11.  The 75% drop  
> in per
> capita income in Saudi Arabia did.

If you read 'Armed Madhouse', you will discover that the attack was  
motivated by the presence of US troops in SA, by the continuing  
torture and murder of Palestinians, and to promote the reopening of  
Jerusalem as their capital. And you could have heard it first from  
directly from Osama bin Laden, if the US press had functioned as  
something other than a propaganda instrument.

> snip
>> According to the original Peak Oil hypothesis, oil should have been
>> used up by now. Fortunately, proven reserves are at their highest
>> level in history, having doubled in the last 25 years. The Pentagon
>> and its dupes seem to be selling the hypothesis these days as a way
>> to justify increased military spending in order to prepare for coming
>> "resource wars". It seems counter productive to promote a hypothesis
>> being used by the Pentagon, if one wishes to avoid war.
> That depends on the hypothesis being right or wrong, not who is  
> promoting it.
>> Global warming has also been oversold by certain special interests.
> It really does not matter if peak oil or global warming is real or  
> not as
> long as people are concerned about it.  It it the perception of future
> prospects that sets up the conditions for war.

Right, and if you promote these faulty hypotheses, you are  
contributing to the chances of war.

>>> One way both can be solved is power satellites (from the late 70s).
>> While solar power satellites could make a contribution, they are not
>> going to solve climatic problems. And as ongoing European Space
>> Agency studies show, no new technology, such as space elevators is
>> needed to activate the plan.
> That's been true since the mid to late 1970s.  What space elevators  
> offer
> is a reduction in cost to GEO as high as 10,000 to one and an energy
> payback that's 100 to 1000 times better.

As the recent pouring of close to two trillion dollars down the Iraq  
War / corruption scandal rat hole has illustrated, it is political  
considerations which dominate these type of decisions. The entire  
space colonization / industrialization endeavor could be kicked off  
for 13 billion (1972) dollars. This is a month or two of the Iraq War.

The space elevator is, in itself, a major undertaking. That expense  
would probably add to the cost of starting space industrialization,  
since most of the materials would be coming from the moon.


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28365