wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, IMHO your optimistic position may not be
> sufficient to execute such a commercial space
> program!
>

No but Richard Branson's probably is.

> Of course there is a lot of evidence in my
> position. In any transportation (air, sea or lan)
> systems on Earth, you are moving people from point
> A to point B. In space, there is no point B! LOL

you are talking rubish. Even in space there is a point B.... you just need more reference points. Anyway stop changing the question I asked you to provide evidence and you have provided incorrect retoric.

>
> This is the main problem. We would have to first
> "build" one or more point B's that can sustain
> life and the international space station is a very
> weak first stage on that direction. Even that
> require international cooperation and a lot of
> politics...

I'm afraid I'm in the camp that thinks the ISS should be decomissioned in favour of more scientific /exploration projects. The ISS is more political than it is useful. But it doesn't stop your 'point B' point from being completely wrong. We can take systems that will support life with us. Anyway you are veering of the topic.... again... you STILL haven't provided any evidence

>
> > Open the other eye, there is evidence in my
> favour too...
>
> If could elaborate on the evidence inyour favor I
> would be happy to comment on it, but I don't see
> any right now!
>

Right you missed the majority of the previous comment where I sited the ealy aircraft industry as a direct parralell and evidence... if you don't see that you might need to actually read what I say instead of what you think I said



> > the example I have given about the early
> aircraft industry is a very good one,
>
> It is NOT a good one since, as I have mentioned
> above, there are no practical "destinations"
> (point in space! That is so obvious that it
> amazes me that you can't see it!

yes but that is rubbish as I have already said.

>
> > but you have given no example of 'issues
> associated with safety, liabilities, finger
> > pointing, etc, etc' holding technology and
> commerce back over a period of say 100 years.
> > In fact this is a business opportunity, WHEN
> the prices come down... I'll be doing it.
>
> Maybe when you are 200 years old you will be doing
> it
>
> or maybe it is in a different life time...
>
> Seriously, it has taken us about 50 years or so to
> get to here now in terms of space exploration and
> it is becoming more and more obvious that the
> present socio-economic debt based system is
> hitting a wall in terms of scalability, so what
> evidence do you have that makes you believe that
> space exploration can become commercially viable
> in your life time? The human spirit!?
>

Technology in areas moves in spurts... this might be space travels 'spurt' in to the commercial area. The only real evidence you are offering against this is your pessimism.

> > > > Then when the commercial sector can
> deal with
> > > > getting people in to space, NASA
> the
> > > > ESA and others can concentrate on
> solving the
> > > > next level of problems, inter solar
> travel.
> > >
> > > No within a debt based socio-economic
> system with
> > > the present growing energy costs! IMHO
> your
> > > idealism is not real in terms of
> execution!!!
> >
> > Good sound bite, no fact. In my experience
> your pessimism is not real in terms of the
> > real world, and as I've said above you
> haven't given any examples (and no strawmen
> > please if you decide to)
>
> First of all, realism is NOT pessimism,

I didn't say it was... where did I say it was.... oh I didn't... you're wrong again

> it is a
> THIRD state in between the middle of optimism (+)
> and pessimism (-). I am more of a "realist" not a
> pessimist!
>

I disagree! You seem to look at everything in the negative. That makes you a pessimist.

> Also, there is no "strawmen" or "tinman" here!
>

Oh maybe I should change the word strawmen for unproovable nonesense.

> In summary, pessimism is not realism, but optimism
> is not realism either! Realism is realism... LOL
>

Wow I agree with that statement! Thats one so far!

> > > but what is different now is that the
> socio-economic models
> > > that we have been using for these last
> few
> > > centuries are going exponential and,
> therefore,
> > > can no longer scale as is in the 21st
> century.
> > > Note that all the data supports my more
>
> > > "realistic" position on this vs. your
> idealism!
> >
> > Again I need evidence of what you say,
>
> For crying out loud, look at any of the USA debt
> based charts that the Fed publishes! In addition,
> look at what is happening with the infrastructures
> in the USA which are also starting to get old,
> like in Europe, but most states, counties and
> cities here in the USA are all pretty much broke
> and can't afford to fix them! So now they have new
> laws here where they can just take the land from
> the people and give it to the commercial
> developers to make a bigger mess! I guess this is
> their way to fix the budget problem!!!
>

That isn't evidence though in the area I'm looking for. Here what I'm looking for from you is a fully investigated case study showing what you say... not just nebulously waving your hand and saying (proverbially) "just look at what a bad way the world is in. Thats proof!" I'm afraid that isn't proof at all.

> So, do you really think that this "transition"
> will go smooth?

I think it COULD. I've given you an example of one that did (as you have conveniently forgotten.

>
> > though the socio-economic model has changed
> everything you are saying about
> > the future is based on supposition.
>
> Of course, any and all future telling us based on
> certain assumption and suppositions. I am just
> extrapolating the present reality in logical
> way...
>

Ah... not quite! Predictions of the future, in industry are based on models built on past experince and evidence. In this area I humbly suggest you join the 'real world'.

> > Again putting yourself on the pedistal of
> being in the 'realistic' possition, whilst
> > kicking me in to the possition of idealist
> seems harsh.
>
> I am not kicking any one! If you feel that you are
> being kicked, then I don't know what to say about
> that!!!
>

I didn't say I was being or feeling kicked. I was interpretting your claims of knowing more without demonstrating it.

> > > > From a personal perspective as
> well, I don't
> > > > think society is quite ready to
> explode
> > > > in on itself at the moment.
> > >
> > > Well there are some significant global
> > > socio-economic changes going on right
> now. For
> > > example, for these last 5+ years, China
> and
> > > India's economies have grown much, much
> faster in
> > > real terms than USA and Europe...
> >
> > Is this really a problem?
>
> Well, it is an issue of natural resources and how
> they can sustain everyone's growth without some
> significant changes to the socio-economic models!
> It seems straight and forward logic to me...


Erm yes but ANSWER THE QUESTION HERE! Just to remind you the question was "Is this really a problem?" There is not even an implied answer there.

>
> > Those economies NEED to grow to support the
> peoples of the said countries. Have you
> > Visited India? I have? Have you visited
> China? I'm exceptionally well travelled and
> > I've seen some horrendous poverty. Maybe
> thats why I'm an optimist (note not an
> > idealist...
>
> Mike, there is nothing wrong of being an optimist.
> I was just saying that optimism is not realism.
> Ther is optimism (+), then there is realism (0)
> and then there is pessimism (-). It is a
> tri-state and not a dualistic state!!!

You ARE being pessimistic. At least I am honest enough to say I am an optimist. Human nature leads me to that. The things I've seen have lead me to that. I was mearly pointing out that I wasn't an Idealist like you mentioned previously.... but at least you seem to have changed your mind on that.

>
> > an idealist bases their thinking on
> ideals.... I'm not doing that, I'm saying
> comercial
> > forces will win out, I've got a degree in
> business studies so I can agrue this point if
> > you wish). I've seen terrible poverty but
> I've also seen the strength of the human
> > spirit.
>
> IMHO there are idealists that are optimist and
> idealists that are pessimist, but an idealist is
> usually at odds with a realist due to the
> reference being used. Your reference, as you have
> stated, is that commercial forces will win out, my
> reference is that natural forces will win out...
> Now tell me, which one is more realistic?
>

In this world... commercial forces will win out. I've given you examples... please give me something other than empty sound bites.

> > > So there is a global shift of economic
> power going on...
> >
> > yes as I've said... and I don't think more
> influence and power going to third world
> > contries is necessarily a bad thing.
>
> I didn't say that it was a bad or good thing! Not
> everything is either good or bad, some things just
> are what they are...
>

Sorry the way you mentioned the global shift in power you made it sounds like a bad thing.

> > > > I think today it will only really
> be
> > > > noticeable by a shift in power,
> ideas and information,
> > > > and not by the bloody upsurges of
> the past.
> > >
> > > I don't know about that since History
> tends to
> > > repeat it self over and over again, it
> is always
> > > the same old story to a certain extend,
> but with
> > > different players. The game of life...
> >
> > Actually the old 'history repeats itself' is
> over used.
>
> You mean it is used, over and over again?
>

No but that was another empty sound biter


> > On a small scale it is true, and I think it
> shows just how much of an animal
> > the human being is, and how much instict is
> in the genes so to speak.
>
> That's what I am saying...
>

and also I believe what I'm saying

> > However, that old saying doesn't really work
> on a large scale... we always keep making
> > some progress (even if we cause damage in
> other areas)
>
> Interesting, so you can only see progress at the
> macro level and not the degeneration! This is
> fascinating to me!!!

No whats fascinating is watching you try to answer the question in the way you want without actually providing anything to back it up. You have failed to show it.

>
> > Now go on WG, turn that frown upside down
>
> OK, here it does...
>


try again... try harder


> > If you are always glumly looking at the
> floor, ok you might avoid some of the dog
> > muck, but you'll never see the wonders of the
> sky (and clean shoes are over-rates!)
>
> Well, the problem here is that I am actually
> looking at the sky and I see it falling down...
>
> ..but, ultimately that is still a very good thing
> I suppose...
>
> +-wirelessguru1

thats odd from where I'm sat the sky isn't falling! The stars are slowly creeping their way through the sky in the routine they have followed for far longer than either of us has existed.

Really though I have a feeling you aren't going to answer my questions and that you are just going to pretend that you have again

Mike