Reductio ad Absurdum, was Re: from 6 billion to 500 million: how? (was RE: true abundance?)

From: Michael M. Butler (
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 01:32:29 MST

Oh. I see. You meant the chances of some deep pockets starting up a
program to ship permanent inhabitants in a self-sustaining colony this
week, and pursuing it to completion, were a billion to one.

Well. Duh.

You must really think everyone on this list but you just fell off the
turnip truck on the way to their first science fiction convention.

Sheesh. This is even shallower than the flamebaiting "g" threads. Start
with absurd assumptions, it's no effort at all to come to absurd
conclusions. Be my guest, but don't expect a huge following.

John Marlow wrote:
> #1? The common man.
> #2? Politicians.
> #1 doesn't give a damn, so #2 won't put up the money.
> End of story.
> As to private investment, with current tech aiming for Mars would
> break Bill Gates.
> Again, end of story.
> In short--it ain't in the near-term cards.
> You can show a 90% cost reduction, maybe someone will be interested,
> maybe not.
> jm
> On 30 Jan 2001, at 22:30, Spike Jones wrote:
> > > Star drives and colonization are cool and desirable--but, dude, we've
> > > got a lot of prep to do right here, right now, if we're ever gonna
> > > get there.
> >
> > So lets do it. Whats the problem? Why should it take a century?
> > Star drives are difficult, but the asteroids are right here in our
> > back yards. Hell we can reach those with primative chemical
> > rockets, fer cryin out loud. John what roadblocks are scaring
> > you? Write em out and lets deal with em. spike
> >
> John Marlow

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:27 MDT