Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahutb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!drutx!ahuta!ahutb!leeper
From: leeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Silent Running and loss of oxygen
Message-ID: <673@ahutb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 21:53:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ahutb.673
Posted: Mon Apr 15 21:53:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Apr-85 01:28:59 EST
References: <1164@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 20

I have to admit that it is at least conceivable that the oceans create
enough oxygen so that the dire consequences of my first posting could
be avoided.  I bow the people who have a better background in ecology
than I do (and that is possibly quite a few people on the net.)  I find
is hard to believe that the land would be so polluted that the forests
would have to be shot into space and the oceans could keep on churning
out oxygen unscathed.  I also still contend the jump to the new
ecosystem could be pretty grim (I am responding to the net as a whole,
I think mouse agreed with me on this point).  Also, I am not sure how
secure I would feel if I lived in Kansas with all the oxygen coming
from the oceans.   :-)  I did not cry at the end of SILENT RUNNING, but
I can understand that some people did.  This is a "go for the emotions"
film.  I think as a 7-year-old I cried when I read CHARLOTTE'S WEB.
That doesn't mean that I think it plausible that spiders really do try
to save the lives of pigs.  I didn't even then.  As a sad story, SILENT
RUNNING is a matter of taste.  My objection was more about logical
flaws.

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper