Tuesday, July 25, 2017

This Would Be Great News For Building A City On The Moon

And you do need to build at least the precursor to a City, as opposed to a lack of vision "outpost" (as some have recently proposed), because you have to make your intention to include every nation on Earth who wants to participate a matter of inherent design; so there can be no question that you are serious in that intent.

Which, of course, is another reason why the site prep has to be so extensive at the get go. The thing is, you also want to make it be a place where people would want to live and work in.

This is why I think the site has to be both big, and spectacularly unusual. And since you need to be underground for most of the living space for radiation protection anyway, why not start with making a city that is a kind of massive, circular, cliff dwelling metropolis. Which is also why I suggested digging an immense, minimum mile in diameter, hole in the moon surface, that would go at least a mile deep.

The idea then is to make sure nobody feels like they are in nothing more than a deep hole, and I think you do that by beaming sunlight down the center axis of that hole. This would also make collecting solar energy within the structure a great deal easier.

What you would end up with here is truly something that would be the epitome of "If you build it, they will come." Which would then give us the core army of workers it is going to take to build the automation infrastructure to really develop our solar system; as opposed to just diddling around with a few people for only scientific reasons, or to fulfill the whims of rich people to not only get richer, but to have one more option for the ultimate "gated community," and exclusive playground.

And again, I must emphasize: This is not a dream too far. This is a simple necessity if humanity is going to have any hope of real options for its ongoing survival, now that things may well start to get fairly dicy down here on gravity central.

I urge you to give this some serious thought, and to support it wherever, and however (peacefully) you can.

Moon's Interior May Hold Way More Water Than We Thought

Monday, July 24, 2017

How Is Having The Right To Choose When You Want To Die...

...Any different from letting addicts dosing themselves to death?

I have to ask myself, at least, this question because it pertains to three things that I have come to believe in: The right to chose (where it is assumed that the choice is an unhindered, fully informed one) is a fundamental human right, but associated with that is the essential requirement that you be responsible for your choices. And associated with that is the need of the rest of us to minimize harm, for us, as a practical necessity resulting from the first two assertions.

It is essential, it seems to me, that a person be allowed to choose when they want to die. The instant you make that declaration, however, is to automatically stipulate that, whatever the reasons are, the rest of us can't sit in judgement on whether it fits some sort of test of sufficiency. And precisely because of that people are going to be choosing for the entire range of absolutely understandable, to absolutely inane, tragic, selfish, or whatever other negative term you care to apply here.

From the point of view of the State, trying to control this via the means of, on the one hand either criminality, or enforced psychotherapy, and/or the medical calling's singular control of the assumption that you must keep living, is a losing proposition in the long run, creating more problems, without really stopping much of the harm that the rest of us must suffer as collateral damage, anyway.

I want to be clear here, however. This is not the same thing at all as saying that the State has no responsibility to have whatever kind of therapy, and or recovery, or medicinal need, to be at hand for all all citizens. It absolutely must have these (or what is the point of a social contract in the first place?). Just as it must take great effort, at each step in a person's choice path to death, if that is indeed their path; that it be the most informed choice it can be (for both sides of the issue here; whereas the State can be as nosey as it wants to be when any person is supposedly asking to be allowed to die, because there can certainly be criminality in someone else interfering with, or somehow manipulating, the making of this choice).

This is why I have advocated for the idea of setting up a two tiered system of drug distribution. In the first tier a person could go to provided locations (nothing fancy, just private, clean, safe, and easy to clean) and be allowed to take all of the drugs that fall within the "Controlled Substances Act." No charge. The proviso, however, would be that the individual would not be allowed to leave until the effects of the drug wore off. And if the person kept taking new doses until they died than that would be their choice. The process, though, would be mandated, at each new dose, to inform the user, in detail, what the probable outcome was going to be, as well as asking pointed questions as to why they are doing this, and how help is there to address any of the issues thus uncovered.

In the end, however, it always boils down to an adaptation of an old adage: you can lead a person to a host of better paths, but you simply cannot make them take one; not in any way, at least, where they own that choice, and in so choosing do all they are capable of to make the best of the opportunity.

The other tier, in any case, would be some option combination (especially for drugs like pot) of either taking the dose at home, and not leaving (with a technological verification system), or going to a facility with better perks, for which restitution of some form would be given.

The right to choose. You either believe in it fully or you don't believe in it at all. That's my opinion. What do you think?


WHO GETS TO CHOOSE?


Why are so many doctors opposed to assisted death? As a practicing physician, I've witnessed both sides of this grueling debate.




Sunday, July 23, 2017

I'm Glad He Finally Agrees With Me

Building Gateway City on the moon is an essential first step in establishing our presence in space, especially if we're to bring the rest of the world along with us.

Now if we can only get him to stop fixating on hyperloops on the ground so much and focus instead on the mass driver tubes we will need to build up from the deepest parts of the oceans; the masstransit launch system to near earth orbit that will provide the industrial sized carrying capacity we're going to need that rockets were never meant to provide.


See Also:

What Exactly Are You Planning To Do In Space Mr. Vale?

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

And Of Course Many Of These Are Poster Children For The Cliché Of Big Money Influencers

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says



So Not Not Only Are The Institutions That Are Supposed To Inform US Day To Day Suspect...

...The institutions that would provide advanced education as well are suspect too. Unless, of course, they have the right message going now, but with the fracturing of the Right, that also seems to be in question, with several main themes contending (as in "Free Trade Globalism," as opposed to "Fortress America," with only one market that really matters; whether we can get everything we need here or not).

But wait, it gets even more complicated than that. Other, outside players are trying to put their finger on the great wheel of "Russian Roulette" that is now what we ought to call our "ideological, economic governance."

I say it that way as it serves to illustrate where the notion of majority rule by plebiscite is going, even if the trappings of said process remain. Which would be true whether the outside players were foreign nationals, or not. Or even if there were no outside players. This is so because, to make that plebiscite process a trapping, one needs to sow mistrust in all forms of not only how message gets mediated out to us (in all of its many channels now), but to also sow mistrust for rational, scientific thought; both because they have the pesky habit of creating unpleasant truths, but also because they can tend to create thoughtful, questioning, and most importantly, deeply informed, individuals.

The bottom line for me in all of this is the basic point that money, and the inherent corruptibility of the operating system that supports it, makes all of this screwing around with our institutions so much more possible in the first place; even as it also creates the lion's share of the problems that we, and the planet itself, are faced with, but for which, again, the operating system is completely inept at even seeing in the first place, let alone accepting any responsibility for.

So I say again. The simple fact of the matter is that we must demand that an alternative be found, and the plan then to implement it. This is the subject we must speak of everywhere we can, even as we also work to solve all of that "screwing around" that is now going on with the very basis of what makes us American.


LOW OPINION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Not At All If We Can Get Our Fecies Together

Which means getting rid of both the single worse force behind the earth getting hotter, as well as the single biggest impediment standing in the way of doing everything we can to avoid this calamity, now that we are more fully aware of it.

Capitalism, and its money, greed, and profits at all costs mentality, must go as a means of social organization. And no one is more suitable to do this than we are. Certainly there are few nations that would have a bigger impact on climate change if they did so than we could have; at least if we follow as much of the technological path I have outlined as we can, in the process. This is what I firmly believe. What do you think?


THE UNINHABITABLE EARTH


Plague, famine, heat no human can survive. This is not science fiction but what scientists, when they're not being cautious, fear could be our future.




The Very Seafloor Complexity That All Of Us Dreamers Need To Be Careful Of

For me, of course, it is the desire to put the base of a radical new space launch system. For others it is the resource extraction that might be possible.

I'd like to think that my use would be the least invasive, but still. At some point the idea might actually not only catch on, but do so in a big way. And a lot of such facilities, no matter how careful each individual one is, creates significant new interaction possibilities, as a whole, that you have to be very open for regardless; especially when you become more aware of new flow circuits; systems you certainly don't want to be adversely affecting.

One nice thing about my launch system proposal, though, is that it gives us a fairly benign presence for research at the bottom as a side benefit. Something that could easily be mandated if this were the public works project I think it needs to be.


THE WATER UNDERWATER


Far below the surface of the sea, the seabed is being scoured by rivers of sediment that can flow thousands of miles from land.