Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 03/14/2000 11:07:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> tdonaghe@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > HUMANITY FIRST! We are capable of creating a technological/biological/
> > neurological utopia in the next century. We already have the capability of
> > destroying all life. What does it say of us as a species if we don't
> choose
> > the former?
> I read the article (at work) monday night in Wired. I suppose the whole
> purpose of the article was not to fall into techno-optimism/pomposity such as
> what happended with the "nuclear age". I bring that up since that example
> was used heavilly in the Wired article, which featured Sun's founder; who
> cautioned against such stumbles in genetics and nano. Now we go back to
> asking; if we don't promote bio and nano, and Others do we will still suffer
> the grey goo blues, without any green goo bennies, because we will have
> vacated a leadership position.
What stumbles occured with nuclear power? Even counting Chernobyl (more
a result of socialism than nuclear technology) and the two bombs dropped
on Japan there are still fewer people killed by nuclear technology in
its entire history than are killed every year by the pollution of coal
burning technology, and coal burning plants put more radioactive
materials into the environment every day than the entire US nuclear
industry has released in its history. While some countries are shutting
down their nuclear plants, they are increasing output at their coal
plants, and are buring lower quality coal than ever before. China burns
coal for most of its capacity that is so dirty that it would be criminal
to burn here in the US.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:14 MDT