Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Moon...ecosystem? who said that, and what were they smoking? you can't wreck the moons "ecosystem" cause it DOESN"T have ONE!! an ecosystem need plants, animals, and AIR!!! we have a case of some VERY messed up tree huggers. oh wait, there ARE no trees on the moon!! i guess they can hug a rock.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Absence of native flora or fauna does not necessarily denote a lack of ecosystem. Leaving beer cans at Tranquility Base still denotes destruction of natural beauty & splendor.
Try to image the world of "Silent Running" where the only forests left are now orbiting Saturn.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
posted
Right, what about the countless amount of trash littering our national parks and preserves? At least there's no real ecological impact on the 'Moon People'.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It should be noted that First supplied the exact term "ecosystem."
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And I supplied that exact term because it was the exact term supplied to me by the eco-dweeb who said it. (I should note that all environmentalists are not 'eco-dweebs,' but any of them who believe that the Moon has an 'ecosystem' are.)
quote:Absence of native flora or fauna does not necessarily denote a lack of ecosystem.
Yes, it most abso-friggin'-lutely DOES.
ecosystem � a local biological community and its pattern of interaction with its environment. Also, ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM, HOLOCOEN.
The Moon has no flora or fauna, or ANY 'biological community,' therefore it CANNOT have an ecosystem.
It MAY be construed to have an 'environment' in the sense that any area of space is an 'environment,' from the inside of my shoe to a cubic meter of empty space 75 A.U. from the Sun, to the core of said Sun, but without life it cannot have an ecology or an ecosystem.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Then, First, yes the guy was an eco-dweeb, simply because he created a term on the spot that is undeniable wrong. Yes, let's all laugh at him. I, for one, will.
However, the lunacy (*rimshot*) of this one guy doesn't mean that (a) the moon has or hasn't a natural heritage value that may well be worth preserving in some manner or another, or (b) there is or isn't a good argument for keeping or regulating the commercial exploitation of space.
What your argument therefore amounted to was "Some idiot says the moon has an ecosystem and clearly he's wrong and because of that the people who banned territorial claims on the moon (which were undoubtedly for the above reason) were also wrong."
Shall we all start counting the logical fallacies together?
[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If the military defense shield is implented, this will be a violation of the same treaty that limited commercial oppurtunites in space. Does the implementation of the shield void the treaty, and will that unlock a door to commercial enterprises?
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Thanks, Sol. I was looking for a good responce to that question but couldn't articulate it well enough for my liking. But that sums it up nicely.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The ABM Treaty (bilateral, USA & USSR) and the treaty governing the use and disposition of extraterrestrial objects (multilateral, UN) are not the same treaty at all.
The first has to do with man-made, largely land-based objects. The second has to do with naturally-existing bodies. They have vastly different provisions.
So no, the ABM system would NOT void this treaty (though it WOULD void the ABM Treaty). Nor would it 'open the door' for commercial development of space.
As for the 'Natural Beauty' of the Moon... for whom, colonists? Colonists would by necessity drastically alter the Moon's surface. More alteration would be in-line with their needs and likings, not against it. Imagining giant strip-mines marring the surface of the Moon as seen from Earth is silly. It's too far away to see. Even the detail we can resolve with our big backyard telescopes isn't too big... and we don't observe the Moon with much bigger than those, anymore, because we already KNOW all about it that visual surface scans can tell us.
Of course, NEA's would be even better to mine than the Moon, and don't present the aesthetic 'problems.'
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Yeah, asteroids are probably the way to go. If they could somehow knock one into orbit around Earth or the moon, mine it for a few decades (some asteroids have trillions of dollars worth of metals) and then convert the mining caverns into habitats and research areas. I'm of the opinion that space technology will not come of age until we can build stuff in zero gravity conditions, and significant numbers of people can work in space, under normal terrestrial conditions i.e. with gravity, so people can live there for several years, and expertise stays in space.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Then we could use the hollowed out asteroid as an arch to carry all of our people away incase of a desaster on Earth, we could call it Unada (spelling). This will take us to a fabled land of milk and honey... Oh wait its been done. Paul
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Or instead of building a civilization in a hollowed out asteroid and launch into the depths of space, we could just go next door to Mars.
::looks around self-consciously at the silence::
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
