Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.astro
Subject: Re: Why is Human Life Valuable (Disaster Insurance)
Message-ID: <31654@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 11:21:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.31654
Posted: Wed Oct  9 11:21:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 19:28:27 EDT
References: <1683@brl-tgr.ARPA> <28200001@ccvaxa> <243@3comvax.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 93
Xref: watmath net.abortion:2323 net.astro:1038

I don't know if this really belongs in all (or any) of these groups
but I am at a loss to say where it may belong.  Is there a
net.philosophy?

I don't know about the original postings, which I didn't see, but some
things in the follow-up to which this is a follow-up interest me and
may form a base for some interesting discussion.  Has anyone a
suggestion for a good *single* news group in which to do so?

> > Ray of Rochester states that humans are capable of doing more
> > good for the planet and each other than any other race.
> >
> >     How does one possibly help a planet? 
> >    
> > 		I am nonplussed.
> 
> I'll give just one example.  (It's an example that Ray Frank might
> not care for.)  The help I'm talking about involves saving much of
> the *life* on Earth, not the planet itself, as Earth will continue
> along her ponderous course -- with or without the life aboard her.  
> 
> It may seem odd to talk about saving living things from extinction,
> when humans are killing off species at a high rate.  Nevertheless,
> the opportunity may arrive when we can provide redress for life.  

As I recall, the greatest single cause of this "killing off" is
destruction of habitat.  Of course a nuclear disaster or the
cosmological disaster (is that the right term?) would certainly leap
into the lead but I'm talking about existing conditions.

This habitat destruction is largely caused by what we (often,
euphemistically) call progress.  Every time a piece of vacant land is
developed whether for construction of a city, a shopping center, an
oil field, strip mining, a private home, a wheat field, etc., habitat
is destroyed.  The question, I think, is are we willing to limit
"progress" so that we may retain some of this habitat and the living
things there in?

Pollution is another way of "killing off species"; acid rain is a
notable example.  Again are we willing to limit "progress" and
insistence upon adequate pollution abatement equipment is certainly a
limit because the more this "progress" costs, the less of it we can
have.

Many people believe that hunting and fishing are "killing off
species at a high rate."  I don't believe that this is true.  Hunters
and fishermen insist upon large game populations.  This requires
*habitat* for which, directly and indirectly, they provide large sums
of money.  This habitat is, of course, usable by non-game species as
well.

The big question, then, is will there be any species left to protect
from the colliding asteroid mentioned below?  Is the human species
willing to practice the self restraint that will be needed to allow
other species to coexist with us on this planet?

> There is now strong evidence that 60 million or so years ago an
> extraterrestrial object, thought to be a small asteroid or comet,
> .
> .
> .
> An asteroid or comet could well come again.  Smaller impacts, which
> would occur much more frequently, might not do as much damage but
> could still be massively catastrophic to human society and much of
> the rest of life.  We can see these bodies floating around us --
> .
> .
> .
> If such an impact occurs again, life on Earth is
> no better prepared biologically, and would die just as mightily.  
> 
> However, now there is us.  *Alone* among all life on Earth (at
> least as far as taking any action is concerned), we humans are
> capable of recognizing what an asteroid is, we alone are capable
> of locating the potentially troublesome objects, and we alone are
> capable of going out there and nudging the offending bodies aside,
> years before any actual collision with the Earth could take place.  
> 
> So, if we can manage to avoid creating *our own* "nuclear winter,"
> and if we learn to preserve and don't continue to destroy the life
> that the Earth now has, we may someday perform a service for life
> far greater than any destructive capabilities we have carelessly
> exercised.  It is a new *constructive* capability, which life has
> never before possessed, that humans bring to life on Earth -- the
> ability to detect, predict, and circumvent very rare disasters.  


-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa