Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership
Message-ID: <5741@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jan 89 00:03:37 GMT
References: <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1989Jan15.095906.18357@utzoo.uucp> <92@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1989Jan18.043708.27547@utzoo.uucp> <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> <6226@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 18

In article <94@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>> Fusion power? Life extension? Nanotechnology? Antimatter?
>>AI? Sure, they're all *just* around the corner, and they'll all make
>><desirable activity/goal X> *so* much easier, why bother to do
>>anything about it with existing technology?
>
>Space settlements are another example of *future* technology.  
>Nanotechnology, which is based on the precision of current 
>scientific instruments and the capabilities of living organisms, is no
>more speculative than space settlements.  Nor is fusion or antimatter.
>AI is quite a bit more unpredictable.

	You don't seem to realize, nick, that space settlements were within
'70's technology, easily within '80's.  It doesn't mean they're not expensive,
but we already have the technology needed (and then some).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup