Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!BRUC@MIT-ML
From: BRUC%MIT-ML@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: none
Message-ID: <15413@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Jan-84 22:21:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.15413
Posted: Fri Jan 13 22:21:00 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Jan-84 01:07:29 EST
Lines: 18

From:  Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>

Frankly, I don't see any way of restoring the earth's ecology to a
more healthly state unless we tap extra-terrestrial resources soon. We
do not have the energy capacity in easily accessible form that will
permit the improvements in standards of living for most of the world
so that population growth can be stopped.  (Rich, educated people have
few children than poor, illiterate ones and energy will be at the root
of future development) To clean up the various industries responsible
for pollution, we also need cheap energy. Because I can't go into
detail about these arguments, I refer you to Gerard K. O'Neill's
The High Frontier which addresses many of the points you raised although
from a much more optimistic and pragmatic point of view.

I would opt for good living rather than just surviving; I would opt for
good living for all of mankind, not just Europe, North America, and
the Western Pacific; I would opt for a living earth getting resources from
lifeless asteroids and planets.