> From: janet_baker76
> But let me sum it up violently: in his examples, it adds up to this--
> every single "step" we've taken technologically has ended up being a
> nightmare of some form or other.

I would certianly agree, as I assume most people here would, that almost
every technolgy we've developed has turned out to have a dark side or one
form or another.

> SO LETS JUST CHILL, being the national consensus.
> Let's talk about it, sure, since we got these
> degrees that say we should, but let's not actually
> do it or entertain serious, sustained debate.
> Doesn't that about sum up John's point?

No. Not in any way does that sum up my post.

And personally I've no idea where your 'and so we shouldn't bother'
perception came from.

I'm saying there are vested American interests in maintaining US dominance
in certian key markets. Look up the 'open skies' deal between Europe and the
USA recently. American companies can buy a controlling share in European
airlines, but not vice versa. America is protectionist. That is hardly a big
secret. Now consider that America has almost complete market dominance in
space based intelligence assets. What makes you think the US military is too
stupid to realise what it has, or is *eager* to give it up?

Ask yourself why the follow on competition to the Ansarni X prize is only
open to Americans.

I'm not saying that's the only or even the main reason. I'm sure good old
fashioned short term greed and general stupidity are good indicators for why
we're still stuck on the ground. But I'm also certian that somewhere in the
vast US government, sometime over the past 40 years, at least one person has
sat down and thought through the practical consequences of CATS (especially
foreign nations copying American CATS methods) and has come to the
conclusion that it is, at best questionable, whether CATS is in America's
strategic interests. And has shared their findings.

Given how many good solid ideas for CATS have been burried over the years, I
don't think it's completely unreasonable to suppose it might have happened
deliberately once or twice.

> Well, I'd like to examine it. Let's say he's right and that's the
> mindset.

You can examine whatever mindset you like. Just don't pretend it's mine.

> Yours in Christ, damn it,
> Jan Baker

Okay... You don't seem to like people who lack a certian minimal level of
pride in their nation. I'm pretty sure the people currently running America
or NASA don't belong in that catigory.

John

Dear Joe and all,

You wrote, "personally I've no idea where your 'and so we shouldn't
bother'perception came from." It came from a post on the topic
citing with amazement that the talking heads were discussing old
technology and ignoring pertinent developments in general.(I can't
find the post now, but re-reading the data-rich posts on this topic
was worthwhile!) And I drew the conclusion the situation as
discussed by the writer warrents: we, the people of earth, tolerate
this approach to problems because we are stuck. I went further and
tried to say what we are stuck in: liberal glue, that makes us
distrust virtually everything, technology, the making of profit, the
potential imperialism of putting a foot on a spaceship and going
somewhere with the culture we have. We're just not sure anymore, and
so we settle, with the net result of lethargy and retrospection
instead of energetic, urgent pursuit of solutions to the challenges
facing mankind. Lethargic solutions constitute exactly what one post
cited, the lopping off of our desires. whether it's at the gas pump
or the maternity hospital or the high frontier. (Desire trimming is
a religion by the way, one to be avoided.) This list had a name for
this mind-set in a thread last year, but I forget what it was called-
-zero growth? Un-expansion?

At some point or another, most topics on this list end at this same
place: there's lots of the talk we call "space talk" and always want
to get back to, and then in the discussion someone inevitably says,
why aren't we doing this? Look at how this solves a/b/c problem of
earth--why is this being ignored? And then we get into the "non-
space talk" which really is about space, laddies. But I know it's
easy to forget that, because it's even harder than hard data.

I appreciate it, Joe, that you tried to make sense of it by summing
up my point, saying that I don't seem 'to like people who lack a
certain minimal pride in their nation.' I can see why you'd conclude
that, but that's not it. It's not about belonging to a nation, but
about being human. I say we need to return to a delicately balanced
perception of mankind that worked very well in the past to propel us
into new territories, one which we have abandoned. This definition
said we were sinful (act against the will of God as revealed in the
commandments) but redeemed in nature, because God's solution was to
unite his divine nature with ours in the person of Christ,
making "all things possible." All things possible. It is that which
we have lost, that makes it all talk and no barbeque, not
conspiracies involving profit. Mankind overcame those same obstacles
over and over again in getting to where we are now.

It is not that the social perception of a redeemed mankind changed
most people or transformed most transactions. It is that such a
social perception, when widely held, promotes the rarest of
technologies, the saint, those who are truly able, even temporarily,
to put the good of the whole over the good of self, or company, or
nation. Now, with our present mindset (I called it liberalism, but
that's not entirely accurate) we have no saints.

We will not get to space without them. We will not overcome the day-
to-day setbacks without them. Thus, identifying the most helpful
philosophy--and exposing unhelpful ones--is a valid and honorable
discussion, very space friendly and very politically incorrect. Not
at all the same discussion as 'Bush is an idiot' or 'Clinton has
forgotten how to smile,' by the way.

But it's always good to discuss all the necessary things, including
the mechanics of the sling and the grid and the boil and the skid.
The God discussion can wait for another day.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: janet_baker76
> > But let me sum it up violently: in his examples, it adds up to
this--
> > every single "step" we've taken technologically has ended up
being a
> > nightmare of some form or other.
>
> I would certianly agree, as I assume most people here would, that
almost
> every technolgy we've developed has turned out to have a dark side
or one
> form or another.
>
> > SO LETS JUST CHILL, being the national consensus.
> > Let's talk about it, sure, since we got these
> > degrees that say we should, but let's not actually
> > do it or entertain serious, sustained debate.
> > Doesn't that about sum up John's point?
>
> No. Not in any way does that sum up my post.
>
> And personally I've no idea where your 'and so we shouldn't bother'
> perception came from.
>
> I'm saying there are vested American interests in maintaining US
dominance
> in certian key markets. Look up the 'open skies' deal between
Europe and the
> USA recently. American companies can buy a controlling share in
European
> airlines, but not vice versa. America is protectionist. That is
hardly a big
> secret. Now consider that America has almost complete market
dominance in
> space based intelligence assets. What makes you think the US
military is too
> stupid to realise what it has, or is *eager* to give it up?
>
> Ask yourself why the follow on competition to the Ansarni X prize
is only
> open to Americans.
>
> I'm not saying that's the only or even the main reason. I'm sure
good old
> fashioned short term greed and general stupidity are good
indicators for why
> we're still stuck on the ground. But I'm also certian that
somewhere in the
> vast US government, sometime over the past 40 years, at least one
person has
> sat down and thought through the practical consequences of CATS
(especially
> foreign nations copying American CATS methods) and has come to the
> conclusion that it is, at best questionable, whether CATS is in
America's
> strategic interests. And has shared their findings.
>
> Given how many good solid ideas for CATS have been burried over
the years, I
> don't think it's completely unreasonable to suppose it might have
happened
> deliberately once or twice.
>
> > Well, I'd like to examine it. Let's say he's right and that's the
> > mindset.
>
> You can examine whatever mindset you like. Just don't pretend it's
mine.
>
> > Yours in Christ, damn it,
> > Jan Baker
>
> Okay... You don't seem to like people who lack a certian minimal
level of
> pride in their nation. I'm pretty sure the people currently
running America