We do not neccesarily need to permenantly breech the lake. We should be able to send a steralized probe on a one way trip the first time and have data trasmitted back to the surface. This could give us some information without permanently linking this ecosystem to our ecosytem.
Bush would never do this. The poor don't give campaign contributions so why help them and making the poor into meat patties would hurt our cattle growers who do give campaign contributions.
Distribution problems are related to destruction of wildlife and forests to some degree. distribution that was more equal than what occurs now would call for additional resources. Change could occur through a shift in the economic system or through a shift in the way we think about producing food. Any changes in our society on the scale it would take to more equalize distribution would more than likely be accompanied by a change in many of our decisions. Any one of those changes could result in either more or less destruction on natural resources. And the cascading affects of any of these decisions are impossible for us to forecast. More than likely there would be a tradeoff. Rarely to we get something for nothing. the question is what would be the tradeoff?
Slashdot Mirror
We do not neccesarily need to permenantly breech the lake. We should be able to send a steralized probe on a one way trip the first time and have data trasmitted back to the surface. This could give us some information without permanently linking this ecosystem to our ecosytem.
Bush would never do this. The poor don't give campaign contributions so why help them and making the poor into meat patties would hurt our cattle growers who do give campaign contributions.
Distribution problems are related to destruction of wildlife and forests to some degree. distribution that was more equal than what occurs now would call for additional resources. Change could occur through a shift in the economic system or through a shift in the way we think about producing food. Any changes in our society on the scale it would take to more equalize distribution would more than likely be accompanied by a change in many of our decisions. Any one of those changes could result in either more or less destruction on natural resources. And the cascading affects of any of these decisions are impossible for us to forecast. More than likely there would be a tradeoff. Rarely to we get something for nothing. the question is what would be the tradeoff?