New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (6216 previous messages)

fredmoore - 11:29am Nov 23, 2002 EST (# 6217 of 6231)

Rshow .... DOTS

rshow55 11/23/02 9:38am

'We have to learn to connect some of it, make some better decisions, and negotiate some better, warmer, safer arrangements than we have - where there is too much ugliness and danger now.'

Rshow ... you cannot solve the problem at the level of the problem itself. Increase the entropy in our environment and the dots WILL connect themselves. It is easy to point to the CHAOS that exists around us in all its (Poindexter/Saddam) manifestations but they are JUST manifestations in the same way that sores are a manifestation of chicken pox. It is useless to place a band-aid on such sores/manifestaions. Treat the disease. Chaos is always the result of a system with too many consumers and not enough producers, too many sinks and not enough sources, too many uses and not enough resources ... a breeding ground for strange attractors. A thermodynamic analysis of chaos reveals that such systems have relatively HIGH ENTROPY and that by decresing the entropy, the system will regain order/stability/harmony.

One way to increase ENTROPY is reported in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/23/arts/23URBA.html?8hpib

Engineering wetlands and other constructed ecosystems can be better than anything nature can provide by way of evolution and chance. These systems WILL retain entropy on terra-firma where we work and play. They will stop entropy slipping into our oceans where crude mixing of the various components of that entropy causes violent interactions and unstable climate. We can not only assist nature we can improve it by our planning skills.

A second way to increase Entropy is to convert the Kyoto treaty from 'no CO2' to 'yes all major cities to have 1200MW geothermal power per 100million people by 2010'. Geothermal entropy was responsible for the dinosaurs whose leftover crap is what we call fuel. The dinosaurs lasted over 100 million years on this geothermal entropy ... we have been around a little over 12000 years in civilisations and are already running out of our dino-doo-doo fuels. It is expedient that we find our way to geothermal energy solutions ... real soon.

A third way is to invest in the development of Thermoelectric fabrics. Fabrics which can convert heat to power and provide shade and condensational moisture.

Like I said .... treat the disease ... ditch the band-aids .... the dots will connect themselves.

I do not wish to discourage you ,,, but you must ask yourself: "when was any struggle for survival ever about being 'nice' or about connecting the dots of each primal blow as we fight for existence".

rshow55 - 11:41am Nov 23, 2002 EST (# 6218 of 6231) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

"when was any struggle for survival ever about being 'nice' or about connecting the dots of each primal blow as we fight for existence".

Two separate questions. No question - some fights have to happen.

But the number of ways to do things is very great ( N! increases very fast with N - - see discussion of N! and statistics available when you click rshow55 in the upper left of this posting )

And so understanding and good decisions matter.

Military history - even at its goriest, has plenty of examples where "connecting the dots" makes a big difference. MacArthur's campaigns often had a certain stark beauty. Though they weren't always "nice."

There are too many ways for things to go wrong for "surrender to chaos" to make sense very often. People fear disorder for good reasons.

With understanding of details - it is often possible to find ways of being both effective, and nice. Or as nice as possible.

Though some fights cannot and ought not to be avoided.

almarst2002 - 01:48pm Nov 23, 2002 EST (# 6219 of 6231)

Lunarchick, thanks for the superb links.

More Messages Recent Messages (12 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us