Aucbvax.6035
fa.space
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space
Tue Feb 2 03:35:44 1982
SPACE Digest V2 #95
>From OTA@S1-A Tue Feb 2 03:22:46 1982
SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 95
Today's Topics:
Technology and Humanity
RE: Technologists and Humanists
Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 01 Feb 1982 1014-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW AT S1-A>
Subject: Technology and Humanity
To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC
Date: 31 January 1982 03:39-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE MIT-MC AT>
Subject: Technologists and Humanists
If you burned all the art, people would be miserable but alive.
If you burned all the technology, about 75% of the population
would starve.
Which should we do?
(Maybe neither?)
My point was not that one is independant of the other, but that
they are both facets of the same jewel. If you burned all the art,
would you include well-designed machinery, or elegant computer programs?
If you burned all the technology, would you destroy Moog synthesizers,
or synthetic-fibre paintbrushes? Art can be functional, as technology
can be artistic. Is writing a novel on a word-processor an act of
artistry or technology? --Tom
------------------------------
Date: Mon Feb 1 18:49:11 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!gdg at Berkeley
Subject: RE: Technologists and Humanists
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Bravo! Excellent observation stated in a few elegant sentences. With only a
few exceptions I can think of (e.g. recent use of computer-generated graphics
and holography as art media per se) artists tend to disparage
technology/technologists while the reverse is not seen nearly as often. Is
this a result of one-way ignorance? I think so; I am often shocked at the
technological illiteracy of many of my artist friends. On the other hand, I
am often impressed by the deep appreciation for art which most of my "tekkie"
friends possess. (By the way, when I say "technological illiteracy" I
don't mean that they never heard of Maxwell's equations; I mean they don't
even have an understanding of what inductive reasoning (i.e. scientific method)
IS!!!)
- Glenn Golden
------------------------------
Date: 2 February 1982 02:42-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM MIT-MC AT>
Subject: Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station
To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
I think it's much easier to build large structures in space than
on the Moon, because you can just float out things via automated
beam-builders and not have to sorry about supporting the equipment
against gravity nor even about the hills and valleys you'd have to
traverse if you built it on the moon. Even if you build it ok, you
have to beam the energy back about ten times the distance (225,000
miles instead of only 25,000 miles) and somehow re-direct it to
a single place on Earth that will receive it. But it's a idea worth studying.
Maybe I'm wrong and it's a good idea. Experts should add up all
the costs and benefits and compare with the geosync and polarsync
proposals and settle the matter by means other than my speculation.
Has anybody seriously studied lunar-based SPS?
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
