Boysmom, I thought you got one thing in alternate history fiction . I admit, I wish I had more time, because I’d *LOVE* to read Eric Flint in context (another writer who really shouldn’t be allowe to ever collaborate – Dave Weber is ok, but everyone else is horrifying, and he’s a fun writer, except for the inability not to explain some detail of shipbuilding or gunsmithing every time it occurs to him ).

I agree that Sharps is basically an industry pusher – my objection is that the novel has such a strong political agenda – it is essentially a very long book designed to tell us how great nuclear power and the space program are. I find this moment above distasteful, simply because it wasn’t necessary – Niven and Pournelle wrote a good defense of the space program (if overstated – the total medical value of the space program is pretty low, actually) at the beginning of the paragraph, and they could just as easily have claimed that a little investment and research (the mantra of the pusher) could get us to the asteroids – that was pretty consistent with the beliefs of the 1970s. That is, they didn’t have to overstate it – and they conceal the overstatement – this isn’t the same as suggesting we really have space lasers and didn’t – they imply that they are using the conventions of science fiction appropriately. I find this disturbing because it operates as a hatchet job on the COR – not only are they wrong and stupid, but a mysterious “they” are preventing us from having all the resources we need – they become an evil, illuminati-esque conspiracy, rather than people they disagree with. Given their tendency to represent as absolutely evil anyone that makes them uncomfortable, I think this is troubling.

Sharon

Got me thinking about how really difficult life without electricity would be! No refrigeration–(I’m really looking forward to Sharon’s discussion about living without a refrigerator. ) No water as the pump from the cistern wouldn’t run-(we have a rope and bucket, but that is for real desperation.) The toilet wouldn’t work for the same reason. Of course no lights, radio tv, internet. And without the dehumidifier in the basement, everything stored there would soon rot. And we would lose the stuff in the freezer.

So, I’m back. I was unable to get a copy of LH, but sounds as tho I didn’t miss much. I also remember The Mote in God’s Eye–a real explicit take on overpopulation. And a pretty good story.

It seems that the issue of belief that all limits can be overcome by a firm belief in science is the one we keep running up against in trying to convince others of the reality of the coming crisis–technology will save us, “they” will come up with something, a “Manhattan Project” type effort will provide a solution. I guess they all read those cornucopian novels in the 70s.

At that time there was a real belief that we WOULD mine the asteroids, and that American technology would provide a utopian future (if only we could avoid nuclear war).

What happened since seems to be a suspicion of science as the evil that tries to take us away from God (evolution, stem cells) and the mainstreaming of an anti-science mind set. So now there is a widespread ignorance of the actual limitations of science and a resulting unrealistic expectation that if necessary it can work miracles.

Asteroid mining, space-based photovoltiac arrays and most of the other ideas touted in the seventies are technically feasible, using current knowledge and a great deal of off-the-shelf technology that’s available now. What isn’t available can easily be fabricated, if the need arises.

The big problem that hasn’t been solved, is the issue of how to get from Earth’s surface to Low Earth Orbit at any reasonable cost. The Space Shuttle was touted as the ‘truck’ that would reduce the cost of orbiting payloads, but it’s currently the most expensive technology ever deployed for that purpose. (NASA could save billion$ by reverting to the Saturn V instead.)

If [i]H Sapiens[/i] is to exploit the energy and rescources that are available beyond the Atmosphere, the effort will involve lifting payloads that are orders of magnitude larger / heavier than anything yet attempted. The only proven technology is solid and/or liquid-fuelled rockets, which remain hideously expensive.

In a World of shrinking wealth, such technology guarantees that the (possibly once-off) opportunity for our species to expand beyond the Club of Rome’s ‘limits’, may be lost forever.

Regards,
Paul

The thing is that you don’t have to lie to get that message across. Real ability in an area, real achievements, come from working within limitations. For example, a good driver or kayaker or ship pilot knows the limits of the vehicle they’re controlling, and the limits of the particular conditions of the road or water at the moment, and works within those. That’s skill and ability.

If you were flying in a plane and the pilot was hooning around doing loops and so on, and kept coming close to a stall, and said, “there are no limits, you just need a positive attitude!” would you believe him?

Recognising the limits of nature and technology lets us make the best use of them. Ignoring the limits makes us crash and burn.

I loved his early stuff so much I just kept reading, long after it was hopeless…

Not my intention. Just being thoughtless and big-shaggy-doggish, as is my wont. Sorry! (tail thumping, please forgive me, I’ll try not to jump on you and leave pawprints everywhere in the future…)

He’s human- some of his work is lousy; but some of it is really great. In particular- avoid his collaborations- he’s better alone- and also, like many writers, his early work tends to be much better than his later stuff. He got older- and his writing, and ideas, suffered.