Bye Bye Bananas

The varieties did not suddenly appear...they have been produced a long time ago awaiting the very challenge you specified. My information comes from Clyde Stevens, renowned entymologist with United fruit, banana planations. His associate, who recently passed away, was the one that developed that genetic varieties because of the very problem you came up with...ie a disease or other attack on the specie.

I'll need to touch base with him again if you wish specifics, sinc it was about 4 years ago that the information was given to me for a meeting at Univ of Florida IFES dept. regarding tropical agro foresstry.

A greater threat is to coconuts, since Panama Talls variety was used to replace the wiped out species in S florida and other nearbt areas, and new disease is making its way down the americas which may affect our species, which again is the base for the strains that are currently popular and generally grown by indigenous peoples. There is not the backing for this as there was for development of new banana's.

From: Michael
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:17 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Bye Bye Bananas

Hi,

I assume most people (on this list) have read the "Rama" series by Arthur
C. Clark. It is being made into a film! and should be released in 2006. I
like how it deals with the interaction between technology and biology in an
enclosed environemnt. I can't wait.

>please, dont use the banana for an example... We have a perfectly viable
>replacement for the variety that is generally in use...

What is it called? and where did all the genetic diversity suddenly come from?
Are they genetically modified?

Ignoring the plight of the banana will not make the problem go away. If
something is not done, the commercial banana will become extinct, and other
food species may follow.

>beside there are severall hundred varieties of different sizes textures, etc.

Yes. There are hundred of different types but this is only a change in
their morphology, the differences in their genetics are very slight, and
their biochemistry is virtually identical. As such they can be susceptible
to the same biological diseases.

>> Statement. The smaller an open system is, the more reliant it is on
>> external resources.
>
>So?

You're proposing a settlement, isolated in space. As an open system, it's
survival is dependant on resupply. What happens when resupply is not
possible, or postponed. The International Space Station is a good exmaple.
It's a small open system, requiring continual resupply. Without resupply it
will fail and the inhabitants will not survive. After Colombia, the ISS had
to rely on Russian resupply. If the Russians had not been available to
deliver supplies, how long would they have survived in the ISS?

>The smaller a closed system is, the sooner it will fail,
>moreso if people are in it.
>
>No, the people are there to keep it operating. The Earth's ecosystem
>is unmanageable, whereas the Habitat's would be under our control.
>Humans are there to maintain and improve the technology overseeing
>the eco-system.

That is my point. What happens when you loose control?
You are assuming the environment will remain unchanged and habitable when
the system fails.
Biosphere 2 is a perfect example.
http://www.bio2.edu/
A small group of people with a minimal ecosystem locked themselves in an
air-tight settlement. They had a complex system of environmental controls.
The equipment worked fine but the system failed because it could not cope
with the significant fluctuations in such a small environment. Gases built
up and they had to open the doors. It happened multiple times and very
quickly. If it had been a real space settlement they would have died
numerous times over. It was quite clear that the closed system could not
survive, so they now operate as an open system conducting research.

>> A small closed system is not adequate for long-term survival. Not
>if humans
>> are included. Toxins build up, technology fails.
>
>Which toxins?

Aflatoxins from fungi. Secondary metabolites of bacetria and from the food
plants. The settlement itself will, over time, release toxins. Plastics.
Hydrocarbons. Halocarbons. Heavy metals. Not to mention the gaseous
chemicals that decomposing biomatter will produce.

What would you do about chitin?
Chitin is made by plants and fungi and can't be broken down in human
digestion. It can be broken down by Ants and Termites, or fire. But
Termites produce large amounts of Methane and Fire is fairly uncontrolled.

Also, what about an epidemic. Because the space settlement is so small
(compared to a planet) the epidemic will spread quickly and infect most, if
not all, of the inhabitants.

>That's why a close enough system is fine. To strive for a closed
>system is admirable, but not necessary.

My point is that while the space settlement maybe intended as an open
system, with transport ships coming and going. Interruptions to the supply
of resources can effectively force the settlement into a closed system.
Depending on the length of the disruption and the size of the settlement,
it may not survive.

>Energy use in orbit is on a different calculus than here on Earth.

Of course.
What type of energy supply, heat extraction and pressure adjustment systems
do you have in mind?

>The industrial complex is a necessary precursor to large habitats in
>orbit.

To be self-sufficient the industrial complex will need to located within
the space settlement.

>If you only accept the proposition that a planetary ecosytem can
>support human life then you'll always reach the tautological
>conclusion that planetary scale ecosystems are needed to support
>human life.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I'm not. I'm taking all factors into
account, that I am aware of, and have concluded, with an open-mind, that a
planetary ecosystem is the best solution. I'm yet to find a proposal, space
settlement or otherwise, that can realistically challenge a planetary
ecosystem, in terms of long-term sustainability.

>they can bring in the birds and the bees into each agricultural
>pods, let them do their thing, and then collect them and bring them
>to the next pod.
>Survival doesn't require a biodiverse ecosystem, just the products
>that it produces.

So if you need apples. You grow apple trees. Then you need bees to
pollinate the flowers to grow the apples. But the apple trees excrete
ethylene which syncronises the ripening times of all the trees. So you need
other flowering plants to feed the bees out of season. Then you need fungi
at the roots for efficient nutrient absoption. Every biological organism,
humans included, rely on other organisms to survive. We have yet to develop
technology that will release us from that obligation. When we do, do we
want to be reliant on technology? Technology also fails, and only has us
for backup, while other organisms look after themselves.

>Recycling human wastes can be done with technology and energy.

Technology that requires a lot of space, biological organisms and an
atmosphere to pump waste gases into. Astronauts flush waste into space.
What systems are you proposing for waste recycling?

>If specific toxins are identified then means to negate their adverse
>affects can be designed.

Almost all toxins we know of are brokendown by various biological means.
Those that cannot are instead incinerated at 3000K or released into our
environment. Incineration would have no effect on heavy metal elements and
so must be stored or thrown into space.

>Good point. This just adds to the urgency of establishing Habitats.
>In the Habitat, each little agricultural pod can have an isolated
>ecosystem with optimum conditions for the flora within.

My point was to highlight the dangers to the loss of genetic diversity
through selective breeding, and inadvertantly proved your point on habitat
isolation.
LOL
However, your habitat isolation idea is only valid if there is no exchange
of biological material between habitats. Otherwise, the infection would
spread to other habitats.

>I haven't come across any High Frontier advocates espousing the
>position that we should establish ourselves, get our ecosystems
>functioning, and then cut off all seed, animal and human
>importation.

I wasn't proposing it, just demonstrating a point on diversifying gene pools.

>We have already undergone the stage of mass sexual reproduction, our
>population
>grew exponentially. We're now reaching the limit of our resources.
>
>Are we? There are many resources in orbit.

We are not yet utilising the resources outside our planet, and while our
population is still increasing, the rate that our population is growing is
already declining.

>Our use of nuclear energy and synthetic chemicals
>> are producing mutations at an alarming rate.
>
>Better to rush and create Habitats so that our ecosystems can be
>isolated from these dangerous mutations.

Let's not. At least not yet. So far, I have not seen any sufficient
proposal that will protect space settlements from cosmic radiation.

>Planets are the worst place to base an advanced civilization.

How so?

>Besides, what other planets? The ones we have in the solar system
>don't make any economic sense.

Any we can find. Technology and/or effort are the only reasons ruling out
Venus. Mars on the other hand doesn't have a hope.

>The ecosystem of the Habitat dedicated to human habitation can be isolated
>from
>the agricultural sections.

Ummm, and what will the people eat if they isolated from their food source?
If they are not isolated from it then they are apart of the same system.

>The waste stream in a Habitat can be handled more easily in orbit by
>the use of large amounts of energy.

How? How can lots of energy turn waste into resources. Are you referring to
future technology?

>>provide breeding and resting sites for the birds
>
>So, we have trees within the human section of the Habitat.

lol Are you asking the birds to commute? from one habitat to another. What
about the disease the birds dropping can create in the human habitat.

>The temperature can be buffered by limiting the strength and duration of
>sunlight permitted within the Habitat.

Changing the duration of sunlight will cause problems with plant growth rates.

>I see what you're trying to argue but I hope my answers to your
>questions make clear that I don't accept the same starting
>proposition that you do, namely that we need to recreate process and
>scale in order to have a functioning ecosystem.

I do. I hope my point is also clear. That systems have a critical limit and
below that limit a system is destined to fail. I think most of our
discussion have been dancing around each others points and instead we've
debated what the critical limit is.

>>It's 14 feet of concrete, a few feet of lead or a planetary atmosphere
>
>I'm going to call you on this one. I need some supporting
>documentation that I can assess for myself for your figures fall far
>out of line of everything I've seen.

I hope you find some because I would like to be wrong on this point. It
would make space exploration so much easier.

>> How thick are you talking?
>
>>Four miles in diameter.

How thick would the shell be, from inside to outside? I wanted to know in
reference to comsic radiation, not tensile strenth.

>>From what I can recall, five meters of concrete will give you the
>same radiation exposure as sea level on a cloudy day.

5 metres = 15 feet, sounds right.

>"The six feet of covering will absorb all cosmic rays

six feet of what? Probably Lead.

>You'll have far fewer combustibles in orbit.

That's something I'll have to think about.

>I'm with you on that. LOL. Seriously, O'Neill and the other High
>Frontier advocates weren't dummies. They've made their case very
>well, IMHO, and I can't see any flaws in the models. You just have
>to cast off the planetary chauvinism and see them in a fresh light.

Where can I find copied of their models?

>Hey! I like this idea. That's definitely a unique way of looking at
>the problem - growing the membrane.

Sounds like fun. Sounds like it will burst.
Do you think kids won't try to burst it?

>Do you mean grow it as a biological organism or as a chemical
>process?

Would have to chemical. Biological processes could produce the chemicals
but not the membrane. Unless you are taking about the skin of an animal 5
miles in diameter.

who are they?

Always fun
Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/index.html