Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!husc6!ut-sally!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom Message-ID: <267@prometheus.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 18:26:58 EDT Article-I.D.: promethe.267 Posted: Wed Oct 1 18:26:58 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 12:03:57 EDT References: <564@gargoyle.UUCP> <26500108@inmet> <1167@cybvax0.UUCP> Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 Lines: 99 >>>[janw] writes: >>>>Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating >>>>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. In article <1167@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> >Utter nonsense. Jan, please provide one shred of scientific support >> >for your claims. (This means: document your statements by >> >references to a scientific author or journal with authority to speak >> >in this area, e.g., E.O. Wilson. >In article <26500108@inmet> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> ... you have argued from authority and then >> attempted to bolster this conduct by ducking the issue of whether >> Jan was right or not and requiring Jan to give "scientific" support Hubensz again: >If you and Jan weren't so abysmally ignorant of biology, you wouldn't bother >defending Jan's nonsensical position.. . Hubby, cut the cute petty comments, please; it's a real drag to wade through the "lower elementary level, "Gene and Bob are stupid but I'm so great I'll just answer them anyway". And, Mike conjectures: >Cross breeding: Very simply, cross breeding reassorts genes; it doesn't >produce any new ones. The benefits of cross breeding are only possible >if you have genetic diversity of parent stocks. Here Jan has put the >cart in front of the horse. Hmmm?. What is cross breeding, some kind of bizarre Christian ritual? I always thought it implied "diversity". For example, aren't apples and pears different species? But isn't there a third species that was developed from the cross breeding of certain families of apples and pairs?? And, what's the story on zebras and horses and their cross. One of the problems here is that "genes" will behave differently when "spliced". So an identical gene in one species may have a different "coded" effect in a another species simply because of the differences in ordering, junction and clock rates. Gene jumping and change in chromosome numbers also takes place, although not routinely. >Artificial habitats: No habitat creates genetic diversity: Said while reading his old net news articles to his two headed great grand children who were all basking in the warm glow from the walls of his underground home in the abandoned radium mine. Mike only speaks in the extreme? Easy big fellow, you do have a point, but there you go again landing on concrete. Try the pool? Keep raising your points, but let the reader have a little room to to get some footing and agree. -- General comments: There is no question that genes can be broken with sufficient energy (environmental change). Heat, cold, radiation, chemistry, can all effect mutation. Even interesting but bizarre mutation in "low quality" stuff can be salvaged with "good breeding" some of the time. What our fore bearers did in a few thousand years with cotton, maze, water buffalo, rice, dogs, etc. can be greatly accelerated and although much greater progress needs to be made I feel we can and will do it and within only two or three more thousand years. The real problem is not just survival, but survival as a viable progressive and forward thinking species. FLAME ON (with after burners): If NASA and and DoE didn't exist maybe some gutzie venture types would help us to build our fusion power generators and propulsion drives. Then we wouldn't have the stress of an over-populated two legged aquatic apes (here on old number three) and we would then have a real means and incentive to save and extend the gamut of species as far as the nearby stars. But, DoE's internal policy is NOT to consider any new concepts (since about '81) and NASA has no interest in fusion in spite of the fact that DoE is NOT looking at any fusion concept that could ever be harnessed to propel boost phase or deep space engines or even commercial electric power in the judgment of a number of power company engineers who have followed this technology. Government leadership lulls us with yesterday's successes, as it sits on the forward traveling wagon train of time facing the rear. Right now the problem is getting and keeping "Nuclear Death Wood" out of SDI, and once that's done maybe we can get back to progressing technology instead of regressing it. Otherwise, WE will continue to be on the list of endangered species. We go to Congress, and tell them what great things we're doing, and they (the Congress) say 'Here, here is some more money, go back and keep up the good work'. "And who's to say anything different, they (consulting scientist) took an oath when they received their government contract not to (spill the real truth) speak of these things; and those that do are witnesses impeached. ..Well, I (pause) that's all. (Lowell Wood, llnl, SDI Program -interview- NOVA) +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+