Aucbvax.6035 fa.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space Tue Feb 2 03:35:44 1982 SPACE Digest V2 #95 >From OTA@S1-A Tue Feb 2 03:22:46 1982 SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 95 Today's Topics: Technology and Humanity RE: Technologists and Humanists Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 01 Feb 1982 1014-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Technology and Humanity To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC Date: 31 January 1982 03:39-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Technologists and Humanists If you burned all the art, people would be miserable but alive. If you burned all the technology, about 75% of the population would starve. Which should we do? (Maybe neither?) My point was not that one is independant of the other, but that they are both facets of the same jewel. If you burned all the art, would you include well-designed machinery, or elegant computer programs? If you burned all the technology, would you destroy Moog synthesizers, or synthetic-fibre paintbrushes? Art can be functional, as technology can be artistic. Is writing a novel on a word-processor an act of artistry or technology? --Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon Feb 1 18:49:11 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!gdg at Berkeley Subject: RE: Technologists and Humanists Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Bravo! Excellent observation stated in a few elegant sentences. With only a few exceptions I can think of (e.g. recent use of computer-generated graphics and holography as art media per se) artists tend to disparage technology/technologists while the reverse is not seen nearly as often. Is this a result of one-way ignorance? I think so; I am often shocked at the technological illiteracy of many of my artist friends. On the other hand, I am often impressed by the deep appreciation for art which most of my "tekkie" friends possess. (By the way, when I say "technological illiteracy" I don't mean that they never heard of Maxwell's equations; I mean they don't even have an understanding of what inductive reasoning (i.e. scientific method) IS!!!) - Glenn Golden ------------------------------ Date: 2 February 1982 02:42-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think it's much easier to build large structures in space than on the Moon, because you can just float out things via automated beam-builders and not have to sorry about supporting the equipment against gravity nor even about the hills and valleys you'd have to traverse if you built it on the moon. Even if you build it ok, you have to beam the energy back about ten times the distance (225,000 miles instead of only 25,000 miles) and somehow re-direct it to a single place on Earth that will receive it. But it's a idea worth studying. Maybe I'm wrong and it's a good idea. Experts should add up all the costs and benefits and compare with the geosync and polarsync proposals and settle the matter by means other than my speculation. Has anybody seriously studied lunar-based SPS? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.