There are at least two organizations that have figured out that the US Government has a stranglehold on sending people into space and have decided to do something about it.
The first group is the Artemis Society International. Right now, they're (Well, *we*, since I'm a member) aiming at the moon, with the goal of putting up a permanent, sustainable colony. They have several reasons for doing so, not the least of which is showing the world that there's still a *frontier* left out there and it's reachable. But along with that, they're putting together efforts to use the reources they find on the moon, as well as setting up research areas.
The second group getting some press is MirCorp. This is actually an international effort of private individuals who have essentially bought Mir and have just completed a mission, using russian launch vehicles and cosmonauts, to repair many of the problems that Mir had. they've convinced the Russions that their idea will work, to the degree that the Russian Government scrapped a plan to abandon Mir or to bring it down.
The point is, Yes, the US Government (and other Governments) have a chokehold on man-rated launch vehicles, but that won't always be the case. There are several options for getting people into space being developed right now, which will be more in demand once the demand for commercial space travel is here. With any luck at all, it'll be very soon.
Not a Knee-Jerk Reaction to the Original Piece
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
There are some good points in the original post that most of the replying posts seem to hve completely overlooked. The question here is not whether everyone will take advantage of this new technology, but whether just a few will. If you don't think that the potential of altering human genes on a large scale is something with which we should be concerned, then you've not actualy looked at the ramifications very much at all.
So what are the arguments against? Can we argue most human beings will oppose physical similarity on the grounds that individuality will be a thing of the past? Okay..that's laughable. World War Two was fought, in part, because a group of people (and a very small group of people at that)were using the crude technology of the time to bring about exactly that thing. Sure, we fought off that idea, but at what cost? Could we argue that most people would never be able to take advantage of the new technology anyhow? Well, I can't argue that, at least when it's first introduced, but, like we've found with computers, it doesn't take long for amazing technology to make its way into everyone's hands. Could we argue that we've managed to handle other technological advances safely, so this one shouldn't be a problem either? Well, we could probably argue that also, but we still don't have a good handle world-wide on nuclear power (or did we forget Chernobyl, and, besides, we still can't decide what to do with the waste products, can we?), nuclear weapons are still a threat, and the only reason that they havne't been a greter threat is that everyone that had them was scared to death of unleashing them lest everyone else unleash theirs. Do we really want a genetic "arms race"? I doubt it.
The fact is that once this genie is out of the bottle we have no idea where it will go and, right now, it doesn't look as if we actually care. There are a lot of very sticky issues here that our government and our soceity have yet to ponder at any length at all and despite that, we're ready to begin changing our own genetic code. Katz was right when he said that we're not suited to handle this technology. We're not even close. But that's one of the few things he said that doesn't matter. Whether we're suited to handle it or not, we're going to have to. I think we should start dealing with the ramifications right now, not based on what everyone might do with the technology, but what the most determined or desperate might do with it.
Wow, there's a lot of not-so-good stuff in this post.
First, I'm a fat guy who is in the process of slimming down, so what's here is what's working for me and, more importantly, what my doctor recommends.
If you're looking to lose weight, please don't start by lifting weights. Lifting weights increases muscle mass, which is heavier then fat, believe it or not. So you'll be industriously lifting weights, and not losing much at all. On the good side, depending on how you choose to lift weights, you'll either tone what you have or develop a lot of new muscle (the general rule is low weight and lots of reps=muscle toning and high weight and fewer reps=big muscle mass).
The first thing anyone should do if they're want to lose weight is to consult their doctor! Losing weight involves a combination of eating properly and exersizing and you should always consult your doc to make sure that what you've planned is actually healthy for you. The last thing you want is to set off a heart-attack or some other injury because what you're doing is too much. Start slow, and stick to your plan, once you have it.
Having said that, there are some very good general guideline anyone can use.
Eat Sensibly. Avoid fats and starches in general. Moderation is good, and overeating anything is bad for you. If you need to snack, snack on veggies. But if you're really jonesing, a small bag of chips won't hurt. Just don't eat a whole 2 lb bag of Doritos (my personal fave!).
Don't eat late. Eating after 8-9 PM is a bad thing to do because your body is slowing down in preparation for sleep. You don't demand much energy, so you body stores what you just ate as fat.
Walking is good. What I'm doing now, as a general plan is walking 30-45 minutes every other day, first thing in the morning. Walking (just fast enough to raise your heart rate a bit) early in the day is excellent for you because it gets your metabolism started for the day, wakes you up, and (since you haven't eaten yet) starts burning fat reserves.
But these are things I do, and though I can't guarantee they'll work for everyone, they have worked for a lot of folks. Take it for what it's worth.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
There are at least two organizations that have figured out that the US Government has a stranglehold on sending people into space and have decided to do something about it.
The first group is the Artemis Society International. Right now, they're (Well, *we*, since I'm a member) aiming at the moon, with the goal of putting up a permanent, sustainable colony. They have several reasons for doing so, not the least of which is showing the world that there's still a *frontier* left out there and it's reachable. But along with that, they're putting together efforts to use the reources they find on the moon, as well as setting up research areas.
The second group getting some press is MirCorp. This is actually an international effort of private individuals who have essentially bought Mir and have just completed a mission, using russian launch vehicles and cosmonauts, to repair many of the problems that Mir had. they've convinced the Russions that their idea will work, to the degree that the Russian Government scrapped a plan to abandon Mir or to bring it down.
The point is, Yes, the US Government (and other Governments) have a chokehold on man-rated launch vehicles, but that won't always be the case. There are several options for getting people into space being developed right now, which will be more in demand once the demand for commercial space travel is here. With any luck at all, it'll be very soon.
There are some good points in the original post that most of the replying posts seem to hve completely overlooked. The question here is not whether everyone will take advantage of this new technology, but whether just a few will. If you don't think that the potential of altering human genes on a large scale is something with which we should be concerned, then you've not actualy looked at the ramifications very much at all.
.02, for now at least.
So what are the arguments against? Can we argue most human beings will oppose physical similarity on the grounds that individuality will be a thing of the past? Okay..that's laughable. World War Two was fought, in part, because a group of people (and a very small group of people at that)were using the crude technology of the time to bring about exactly that thing. Sure, we fought off that idea, but at what cost? Could we argue that most people would never be able to take advantage of the new technology anyhow? Well, I can't argue that, at least when it's first introduced, but, like we've found with computers, it doesn't take long for amazing technology to make its way into everyone's hands. Could we argue that we've managed to handle other technological advances safely, so this one shouldn't be a problem either? Well, we could probably argue that also, but we still don't have a good handle world-wide on nuclear power (or did we forget Chernobyl, and, besides, we still can't decide what to do with the waste products, can we?), nuclear weapons are still a threat, and the only reason that they havne't been a greter threat is that everyone that had them was scared to death of unleashing them lest everyone else unleash theirs. Do we really want a genetic "arms race"? I doubt it.
The fact is that once this genie is out of the bottle we have no idea where it will go and, right now, it doesn't look as if we actually care. There are a lot of very sticky issues here that our government and our soceity have yet to ponder at any length at all and despite that, we're ready to begin changing our own genetic code. Katz was right when he said that we're not suited to handle this technology. We're not even close. But that's one of the few things he said that doesn't matter. Whether we're suited to handle it or not, we're going to have to. I think we should start dealing with the ramifications right now, not based on what everyone might do with the technology, but what the most determined or desperate might do with it.
And that's my
-Jim
First, I'm a fat guy who is in the process of slimming down, so what's here is what's working for me and, more importantly, what my doctor recommends.
If you're looking to lose weight, please don't start by lifting weights. Lifting weights increases muscle mass, which is heavier then fat, believe it or not. So you'll be industriously lifting weights, and not losing much at all. On the good side, depending on how you choose to lift weights, you'll either tone what you have or develop a lot of new muscle (the general rule is low weight and lots of reps=muscle toning and high weight and fewer reps=big muscle mass).
The first thing anyone should do if they're want to lose weight is to consult their doctor! Losing weight involves a combination of eating properly and exersizing and you should always consult your doc to make sure that what you've planned is actually healthy for you. The last thing you want is to set off a heart-attack or some other injury because what you're doing is too much. Start slow, and stick to your plan, once you have it.
Having said that, there are some very good general guideline anyone can use.
But these are things I do, and though I can't guarantee they'll work for everyone, they have worked for a lot of folks. Take it for what it's worth.