Five SFF Stories Featuring Dubious Schemes and Terrible Ideas
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
https://reactormag.com/five-sff-stories-featuring-dubious-schemes-and-terrible-ideas/
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
Five SFF Stories Featuring Dubious Schemes and Terrible Ideas
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
https://reactormag.com/five-sff-stories-featuring-dubious-schemes-and-terrible-ideas/
These stories all involve the terrible ideas actually going wrong.
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass..
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
Five SFF Stories Featuring Dubious Schemes and Terrible Ideas
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
https://reactormag.com/five-sff-stories-featuring-dubious-schemes-and-terrible-ideas/
These stories all involve the terrible ideas actually going wrong.
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass, or robot brains using positrons. One wrong thought and they might >explode into a matter-antimatter explosion, but it never happens in the >stories.
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass
His peers pointed out the problem with using Mercury; in _Space Cadet_
RAH used monotomic hydrogen (highly unstable, but huge exhaust velocity).
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass, or robot brains using positrons. One wrong thought and they might >explode into a matter-antimatter explosion, but it never happens in the >stories.
In article <1179eck$8uu$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass, or robot brains using positrons. One wrong thought and they might
explode into a matter-antimatter explosion, but it never happens in the
stories.
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Five SFF Stories Featuring Dubious Schemes and Terrible Ideas
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
https://reactormag.com/five-sff-stories-featuring-dubious-schemes-and-terrible-ideas/
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
Garrett Wollman wrote:
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
And positrons were quite new and exciting.
About this time Wheeler was working on the theory that the universe
consisted of only one electron, moving forward and backward in time,
the latter case showing up as positrons. I don't recall that idea
ever making it to an SF story.
Five SFF Stories Featuring Dubious Schemes and Terrible Ideas
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
[Re: Ehrlich et al.]
What a dud that that turned out to be. None of my kids, my nieces, or
my nephews are having kids. My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids. Having kids is so expensive now in
the USA.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:21:47 -0000 (UTC), Garrett Wollman wrote:
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
I wondered about that.
Transistors would have been in their early days back then,
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Five SFF Stories Featuring Dubious Schemes and Terrible Ideas
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
An example which I think is older than any of those in that list is
one of Arthur Conan DoylerCOs rCLProfessor ChallengerrCY stories. (Yes, he >did SF too, it wasnrCOt all rCLSherlock HolmesrCY, you know.)
This one involved drilling a hole into the crust of the Earth, deeper
than anyone had gone before. Only they discover (too late!) that the
Earth is a living being, and by cutting into it, they have inflicted a
mortal wound ...
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the ISFDB,
but didn't see a title that looked right).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. >rCo-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 00:36:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
Transistors would have been in their early days back then,
Yes, if by "early days" you mean "eight years before their invention".
The transistor was invented in 1947, and "Robbie" was written in
1939 (published in 1940 because Asimov had to shop it around after
JWC rejected it0.
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the ISFDB,
but didn't see a title that looked right).
In article <1179eck$8uu$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong, >like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass, or robot brains using positrons. One wrong thought and they might >explode into a matter-antimatter explosion, but it never happens in the >stories.
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
Garrett Wollman wrote in article <117a41b$1he4$1
@usenet.csail.mit.edu>:
In article <1179eck$8uu$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass, or robot brains using positrons. One wrong thought and they might
explode into a matter-antimatter explosion, but it never happens in the
stories.
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
On ST:TNG, Data had a positronic brain as a tribute to Asimov.
It's mentioned several times.
Come to think of it, when he made himself a daughter, her brain
fell apart quickly. Perhaps Dr. Soong really did figure out a way
to harness positrons, and Data couldn't replicate it properly.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 04:04:50 -0000 (UTC), Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 00:36:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
Transistors would have been in their early days back then,
Yes, if by "early days" you mean "eight years before their invention".
The transistor was invented in 1947, and "Robbie" was written in
1939 (published in 1940 because Asimov had to shop it around after
JWC rejected it0.
OK, I didnrCOt know Asimov was active that early. ;)
Though I should point out, the behaviour of the transistor had been
predicted theoretically before its actual invention, and there would
have been several research teams trying to get the idea to work. Those
Bell Labs guys knew what they were looking for, they were not just
randomly sticking wires and crystals together. ;)
In Edward Llewellyn's future history, a fantastic new chemical
useful as a cancer treatment, an insecticide, and birth control,
turned out to have an unforseen side effect, which was to sterilize
girls born to women who had been exposed to it. Cue a sudden drop
in population as the birthrate dropped to just above zero, except
in communities that went out of their way to avoid mod cons.
Llewellyn might have had thalidomide in mind.
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
In Edward Llewellyn's future history, a fantastic new chemical
useful as a cancer treatment, an insecticide, and birth control,
turned out to have an unforseen side effect, which was to sterilize
girls born to women who had been exposed to it. Cue a sudden drop
in population as the birthrate dropped to just above zero, except...
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:It always was.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
opopulation bombo ...
What a dud that that turned out to be. None of my kids, my nieces, or
my nephews are having kids. My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids. Having kids is so expensive now in
the USA.
In article <117a72p$36n1e$2@dont-email.me>,Find a small library and will them to it.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
[Re: Ehrlich et al.]
What a dud that that turned out to be. None of my kids, my nieces, or
my nephews are having kids. My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids. Having kids is so expensive now in >>the USA.
I'm only ("only") 53 and I'm actually quite distressed that I was
never able to have a family when I was the right age for it. (Well, >presumably I'm still fertile because evolution doesn't hate males as
much, but parents of school-age children shouldn't be drawing their >retirement savings.) At least in part my own damn fault, but I
certainly could have afforded it.
And now I have a library of more than a thousand books and no one
who's ever going to inherit them.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 04:01:17 -0000 (UTC),
wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
In article <117a72p$36n1e$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
[Re: Ehrlich et al.]
What a dud that that turned out to be. None of my kids, my nieces, or >>>my nephews are having kids. My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead >>>set against marriage or having kids. Having kids is so expensive now in >>>the USA.
I'm only ("only") 53 and I'm actually quite distressed that I was
never able to have a family when I was the right age for it. (Well, >>presumably I'm still fertile because evolution doesn't hate males as
much, but parents of school-age children shouldn't be drawing their >>retirement savings.) At least in part my own damn fault, but I
certainly could have afforded it.
And now I have a library of more than a thousand books and no one
who's ever going to inherit them.
Find a small library and will them to it.
--
Libraries don't generally shelve legacy books. They give them to
their "Friends Of The Library" org and sell them at the annual
book sale.
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
In article <robertaw-8449D4.21452702092026@news.individual.net>,...except that thalidomide *was* approved for use in manyu countries.
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,In Edward Llewellyn's future history, a fantastic new chemical
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the ISFDB,
but didn't see a title that looked right).
useful as a cancer treatment, an insecticide, and birth control,
turned out to have an unforseen side effect, which was to sterilize
girls born to women who had been exposed to it. Cue a sudden drop
in population as the birthrate dropped to just above zero, except
in communities that went out of their way to avoid mod cons.
Llewellyn might have had thalidomide in mind.
It strains belief that the side effect wasn't noticed in testing
but there's reason to think the whole thing was engineered by a
well-meaning alien.
On 9/3/2026 2:55 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
That's one factor. I can think of two others.
* Easy availability of legal, effective birth control, not in control
of men.
* Children not being a financial plus - can't put 'em to work in the
fields at 5 anymore.
On 9/3/2026 2:55 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
That's one factor. I can think of two others.
* Easy availability of legal, effective birth control, not in control
of men.
* Children not being a financial plus - can't put 'em to work in the
fields at 5 anymore.
And in the 19th century and into the early 20th, up to 30% of children
died before
reaching five years old. It was closer to 50% in the 18th century.
On ST:TNG, Data had a positronic brain as a tribute to Asimov. It's
mentioned several times.
Come to think of it, when he made himself a daughter, her brain fell
apart quickly. Perhaps Dr. Soong really did figure out a way to
harness positrons, and Data couldn't replicate it properly.
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
On ST:TNG, Data had a positronic brain as a tribute to Asimov.
It's mentioned several times.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I wonder if Fred SaberhagenrCOs rCLBerserkerrCY story series qualifies.
The premise is there are these giant killer robot ships, (I think self-repairing and self-reproducing), that are out to exterminate all
organic life (including humanity). Why? Because they are leftover from
an ancient war between two long-vanished civilizations. They were
created by one (or both?) of the warring parties as the ultimate
weapon, but they were *too* successful.
(Eventually those would be replaced by syntronics, which are somehow
in hyperspace bla bla bla.)
On 2026-09-03, The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
To be fair, Asimov did say that he chose "positronic" purely for
marketing reasons, and he knew it couldn't actually work IRL.
On ST:TNG, Data had a positronic brain as a tribute to Asimov.
It's mentioned several times.
_Perry Rhodan_ also featured positronic brains from pretty much the
very beginning, clearly cribbing the name from Asimov.
(Eventually those would be replaced by syntronics, which are somehow
in hyperspace bla bla bla.)
In article <SnimS.4$NE2.0@fx20.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/3/2026 2:55 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
That's one factor. I can think of two others.
* Easy availability of legal, effective birth control, not in control
of men.
* Children not being a financial plus - can't put 'em to work in the
fields at 5 anymore.
And in the 19th century and into the early 20th, up to 30% of children
died before
reaching five years old. It was closer to 50% in the 18th century.
My father's youngest brother died "teething".
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 21:47:58 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
(Eventually those would be replaced by syntronics, which are somehow
in hyperspace bla bla bla.)
Supercomputers of the current kind (massive numbers of compute nodes)
depend crucially on the speed of the interconnects between their
processors for performance.
Some designers have decided that interconnections in ordinary three-dimensional space arenrCOt enough, so they run extra wires to give
each node direct connections to its neighbours along four dimensions.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 17:13:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be. None of my kids, my nieces, or
my nephews are having kids. My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids. Having kids is so expensive now in
the USA.
It always was.
We didn't notice because /we weren't paying the bills/.
In article <SnimS.4$NE2.0@fx20.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/3/2026 2:55 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
That's one factor. I can think of two others.
* Easy availability of legal, effective birth control, not in control
of men.
* Children not being a financial plus - can't put 'em to work in the
fields at 5 anymore.
And in the 19th century and into the early 20th, up to 30% of children
died before
reaching five years old. It was closer to 50% in the 18th century.
My father's youngest brother died "teething".
On 9/3/2026 8:53 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 17:13:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.-a None of my kids, my nieces, or
my nephews are having kids.-a My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids.-a Having kids is so expensive now in >>> the USA.
It always was.
We didn't notice because /we weren't paying the bills/.
Its more than just that.-a Inflation adjusted income has been steadily dropping for most of the US for a long time.-a More and more of the
wealth is getting concentrated in a smaller and smaller portion of the population.
On 9/3/2026 1:06 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <SnimS.4$NE2.0@fx20.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>
wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/3/2026 2:55 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:That's one factor. I can think of two others.
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures >>>>>>>> they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth >>>>>> control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective
was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than >>>>> having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them. >>>>
* Easy availability of legal, effective birth control, not in control
of men.
* Children not being a financial plus - can't put 'em to work in the
fields at 5 anymore.
And in the 19th century and into the early 20th, up to 30% of children
died before
reaching five years old.-a-a It was closer to 50% in the 18th century.
My father's youngest brother died "teething".
My father's two older brothers died before one year of age in the middle 1930s.-a One threw everything up, the other of a fever.-a My father ate everything through a tube into his stomach until he was one year of age,
he had the throwup problem also.
Lynn
Nowadays the economy is the best method of birth control. Even those
who _want_ children can't afford them. Been getting worse for
decades.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 18:31:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Nowadays the economy is the best method of birth control. Even those
who _want_ children can't afford them. Been getting worse for
decades.
Some countries are introducing economic incentives to make it more
attractive for women to have children. Because they see that as a
worthwhile -- indeed, essential -- investment in their own nationrCOs
future.
IrCOm wondering how far this trend can go ...
On 9/3/26 20:09, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/3/2026 1:06 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <SnimS.4$NE2.0@fx20.iad>, Scott Lurndal
<slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/3/2026 2:55 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:That's one factor. I can think of two others.
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures >>>>>>>>> they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth >>>>>>> control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly
effective
was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than >>>>>> having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them. >>>>>
* Easy availability of legal, effective birth control, not in control >>>>> of men.
* Children not being a financial plus - can't put 'em to work in the >>>>> fields at 5 anymore.
And in the 19th century and into the early 20th, up to 30% of children >>>> died before
reaching five years old.-a-a It was closer to 50% in the 18th century.
My father's youngest brother died "teething".
My father's two older brothers died before one year of age in the
middle 1930s.-a One threw everything up, the other of a fever.-a My
father ate everything through a tube into his stomach until he was one
year of age, he had the throwup problem also.
Lynn
-a-a-a-aMy mom and her eldest sister in the 1918 Influenza were the
sole survivors of many children of my Grandmother.-a She, GM herself,
died in the 1930s leaving older sister to raise my mother.-a Eldest
sister died in the 1970s of Cancer.
-a-a-a-aFew people understand how far medical science has come in
the since 1950s.-a Grandfather died of heart disease in the 1960s
and-a probably had no idea how dangerous life was.
-a-a-a-abliss
In article <robertaw-8449D4.21452702092026@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the ISFDB,
but didn't see a title that looked right).
Farmer "Seventy Years Of Decpop", maybe?
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51888
On 9/3/26 21:02, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 18:31:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Nowadays the economy is the best method of birth control. Even those
who _want_ children can't afford them. Been getting worse for
decades.
Some countries are introducing economic incentives to make it more
attractive for women to have children. Because they see that as a
worthwhile -- indeed, essential -- investment in their own nationrCOs
future.
IrCOm wondering how far this trend can go ...
Well in Japan we have the Tokyo Plan which is again
meant to incentivize child production. Of course with the
present conditions in the USA and the mood of the
mal-administration it seems unlikely that they will go
further than criminalizing abortion.
If we get adequate changes in the next election
we might adopt measures to incentivize child-bearing
but that will have to take into account discriminatory
practices against women who take time from the workforce
to spend time bearing children and caring for them.
It would also require restoration of full medical care
for women during pregnancy and post-partum as well
as child care subsidies for the lower economic
portion of the economy.
Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I wonder if Fred SaberhagenAs oBerserkero story series qualifies.
The premise is there are these giant killer robot ships, (I think
self-repairing and self-reproducing), that are out to exterminate all
organic life (including humanity). Why? Because they are leftover from
an ancient war between two long-vanished civilizations. They were
created by one (or both?) of the warring parties as the ultimate
weapon, but they were *too* successful.
The same idea is in Dick's short story, "Claw". But in this case humans >have invented the weapons which are in the process of wiping out the
human race but have not yet gone interstellar.
William Hyde
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I wonder if Fred SaberhagenrCOs rCLBerserkerrCY story series qualifies.
The premise is there are these giant killer robot ships, (I think self-repairing and self-reproducing), that are out to exterminate all
organic life (including humanity). Why? Because they are leftover from
an ancient war between two long-vanished civilizations. They were
created by one (or both?) of the warring parties as the ultimate
weapon, but they were *too* successful. And having killed off their
creators, there was nobody left with the ability to turn them off.
Either their original mission (rCLdestroy the other siderCY) was not
phrased specifically enough, or the machines themselves learned to
generalize it, in the absence any remaining targets matching the
original criteria, to attack other living beings they came across as
well.
Given such a bleak-sounding premise, the stories themselves were
surprisingly far from bleak. At least the few I remember reading so
far.
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
Bad stuff *can* get into circulation.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I wonder if Fred SaberhagenrCOs rCLBerserkerrCY story series qualifies.
In article <k06j9ldislmpoopq1utce3tjc8se0lqs74@4ax.com>,Proceeds from which, presumably, at least in part, go to the library.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 04:01:17 -0000 (UTC),
wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
In article <117a72p$36n1e$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
[Re: Ehrlich et al.]
What a dud that that turned out to be. None of my kids, my nieces, or >>>>my nephews are having kids. My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead >>>>set against marriage or having kids. Having kids is so expensive now in >>>>the USA.
I'm only ("only") 53 and I'm actually quite distressed that I was
never able to have a family when I was the right age for it. (Well, >>>presumably I'm still fertile because evolution doesn't hate males as >>>much, but parents of school-age children shouldn't be drawing their >>>retirement savings.) At least in part my own damn fault, but I
certainly could have afforded it.
And now I have a library of more than a thousand books and no one
who's ever going to inherit them.
Find a small library and will them to it.
--
Libraries don't generally shelve legacy books. They give them to
their "Friends Of The Library" org and sell them at the annual
book sale.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:A strong motivation to have more.
On 9/3/2026 2:55 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrC? ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrC? that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
That's one factor. I can think of two others.
* Easy availability of legal, effective birth control, not in control
of men.
* Children not being a financial plus - can't put 'em to work in the
fields at 5 anymore.
And in the 19th century and into the early 20th, up to 30% of children died before
reaching five years old. It was closer to 50% in the 18th century.
On 9/3/2026 8:53 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 17:13:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.-a None of my kids, my nieces, or
my nephews are having kids.-a My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids.-a Having kids is so expensive now in >>> the USA.
It always was.
We didn't notice because /we weren't paying the bills/.
Its more than just that.-a Inflation adjusted income has been steadily dropping for most of the US for a long time.-a More and more of the
wealth is getting concentrated in a smaller and smaller portion of the population.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 18:31:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Nowadays the economy is the best method of birth control. Even those
who _want_ children can't afford them. Been getting worse for
decades.
Some countries are introducing economic incentives to make it more
attractive for women to have children. Because they see that as a
worthwhile -- indeed, essential -- investment in their own nationrCOs
future.
IrCOm wondering how far this trend can go ...
In article <nfsd8aFbhgU2@mid.individual.net>,
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
In article <robertaw-8449D4.21452702092026@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D|ore4raoOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
|ore4+cpopulation bomb|ore4+N ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the ISFDB,
but didn't see a title that looked right).
Farmer "Seventy Years Of Decpop", maybe?
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51888
That is not it.
The story I am thinking of might not be by Harry Harrison. IIRC, it
starts in Mexico with some agents dealing with an illegal pregnancy (I
have a vague recollection that there weren't very many, if any, legal pregnancies).
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I wonder if Fred SaberhagenrCOs rCLBerserkerrCY story series qualifies.
Definitely. The whole concept of long-lived autonomous war machines is
a very, very bad idea. Not just Berserkers, but also Cordwainer Smith's >Manshonyaggers and PKD's Claws.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Bad stuff *can* get into circulation.
It's made worse by the fact that many drugs have effects that don't occur
for many years, and the ones that to have short-term effects are sometimes hard to correlate with use of the drug. When I was a child, it was normal for kids to be given asprin and babies got paregoric for teething.
On 9/4/2026 12:02 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 18:31:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Nowadays the economy is the best method of birth control. Even those
who _want_ children can't afford them. Been getting worse for
decades.
Some countries are introducing economic incentives to make it more
attractive for women to have children. Because they see that as a
worthwhile -- indeed, essential -- investment in their own nationrCOs
future.
IrCOm wondering how far this trend can go ...
The incentives, for the examples I've seen, are laughably low.
You'd have to subsidize births and parenthood to the point
where it becomes a viable full-time career to make an actual
difference.
pt
On 9/4/26 09:04, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 9/4/2026 12:02 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 18:31:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Nowadays the economy is the best method of birth control. Even those
who _want_ children can't afford them. Been getting worse for
decades.
-a-a-a-aPoor people traditionally have seen having children as a way to provide for their own old age.
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
The population bomb went off years ago and although the population is now dropping, we are all suffering the terrible effects of overpopulation
today.
For example, don't think of manmade global warming as being the fault of individuals producing too much carbon dioxide themselves... think of it as being the fault of there being too many individuals producing carbon dioxide.
We aren't anywhere near at the point of Blish's "We all Die Naked" or
even "Cities in Flight" but there are just more people than the earth can comfortably support out there.
--scott
On 9/4/2026 10:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
The population bomb went off years ago and although the population is now
dropping, we are all suffering the terrible effects of overpopulation
today.
For example, don't think of manmade global warming as being the fault of
individuals producing too much carbon dioxide themselves... think of
it as
being the fault of there being too many individuals producing carbon
dioxide.
We aren't anywhere near at the point of Blish's "We all Die Naked" or
even "Cities in Flight" but there are just more people than the earth can
comfortably support out there.
--scott
"The climate doomsayers promised a hell that never arose"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/4712177/ climate-doomsayers-promised-hell-never-arose/
Lynn
On 9/4/26 17:28, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/4/2026 10:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
The population bomb went off years ago and although the population is
now
dropping, we are all suffering the terrible effects of overpopulation
today.
For example, don't think of manmade global warming as being the fault of >>> individuals producing too much carbon dioxide themselves... think of
it as
being the fault of there being too many individuals producing carbon
dioxide.
We aren't anywhere near at the point of Blish's "We all Die Naked" or
even "Cities in Flight" but there are just more people than the earth
can
comfortably support out there.
--scott
"The climate doomsayers promised a hell that never arose"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-
confidential/4712177/ climate-doomsayers-promised-hell-never-arose/
Lynn
-a-a-a-aBaloney!-a Lynn don't you think the small and large climate disaster
around the World are just what you were promised.-a You may
not live long enough to see the future but your business in Fossil
Fuel has not stopped and it will be far worse than you and your
chosen President are capable of imagining.
-a-a-a-aFlash flood in the Grand Canyon is minor.-a Collapse of
the Himalayan glacial dam wiping out down stream villages in
Nepal is a greater one.-a Drought in Europe so that the wrecks
of WW II German warships and the bones of mammoth are exposed
in the bed of the former Beautiful Blue Danube which is now
the muddy trench where the Danube used to flow.-a Wild fires
all over the world and then more flooding.
-a-a-a-aLive long enough and you will eat your words about
the Hell in which you will be living.
-a-a-a-abliss
Malarkey! Bad weather has always happened and always will.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I wonder if Fred SaberhagenrCOs rCLBerserkerrCY story series qualifies.
Definitely. The whole concept of long-lived autonomous war machines is
a very, very bad idea. Not just Berserkers, but also Cordwainer Smith's Manshonyaggers and PKD's Claws.
--scott
Keith Laumer's Bolo in Last Command and Relic of War state the
opposite by saving humanity or bits of it which is also very, very
good for plot.
On 9/4/2026 12:49 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <nfsd8aFbhgU2@mid.individual.net>,
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
In article <robertaw-8449D4.21452702092026@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D-i+yraoOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
-i+y+cpopulation bomb-i+y+N ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the ISFDB, >>> but didn't see a title that looked right).
Farmer "Seventy Years Of Decpop", maybe?
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51888
That is not it.
The story I am thinking of might not be by Harry Harrison. IIRC, it
starts in Mexico with some agents dealing with an illegal pregnancy (I
have a vague recollection that there weren't very many, if any, legal pregnancies).
Probably Mack Reynolds's "How We Banned the Bombs" (_Galaxy_,
June 1968, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?52314).
On 9/4/2026 7:41 PM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/4/26 17:28, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/4/2026 10:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
The population bomb went off years ago and although the population
is now
dropping, we are all suffering the terrible effects of overpopulation
today.
For example, don't think of manmade global warming as being the
fault of
individuals producing too much carbon dioxide themselves... think of
it as
being the fault of there being too many individuals producing carbon
dioxide.
We aren't anywhere near at the point of Blish's "We all Die Naked" or
even "Cities in Flight" but there are just more people than the
earth can
comfortably support out there.
--scott
"The climate doomsayers promised a hell that never arose"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-
confidential/4712177/ climate-doomsayers-promised-hell-never-arose/
Lynn
-a-a-a-a-aBaloney!-a Lynn don't you think the small and large climate
disaster around the World are just what you were promised.-a You may
not live long enough to see the future but your business in Fossil
Fuel has not stopped and it will be far worse than you and your
chosen President are capable of imagining.
-a-a-a-a-aFlash flood in the Grand Canyon is minor.-a Collapse of
the Himalayan glacial dam wiping out down stream villages in
Nepal is a greater one.-a Drought in Europe so that the wrecks
of WW II German warships and the bones of mammoth are exposed
in the bed of the former Beautiful Blue Danube which is now
the muddy trench where the Danube used to flow.-a Wild fires
all over the world and then more flooding.
-a-a-a-a-aLive long enough and you will eat your words about
the Hell in which you will be living.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
Malarkey!-a Bad weather has always happened and always will.
Just 100 miles away from here, there used to be a town called Indianola, Texas.-a The town was wiped out and many of the 5,000 inhabitants were killed by a Cat 5 hurricane in 1875.-a Then another Cat 5 hurricane
happened in 1886, again killing many of the inhabitants, and the town
was abandoned.
-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianola,_Texas
And of course there was the Cat 5 hurricane in 1900 that took out the
entire city of Galveston, killing over 10,000 of the inhabitants.
-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
I can bring up thousands of bad weather events just here alone in Texas before 1900.-a The Mexican Army to resupply Santa Anna's army after he murdered every person in Goliad and the Alamo camped between the two
banks of the San Bernard river in 1836.-a Most of the 2,500 soldiers and 1,500 camp followers were killed in a flash flood that night with four
feet of water in their camp.
-a-a https://www.tshaonline.org/publications/sea-of-mud
Lynn
In article <117eq97$pe7a$1@dont-email.me>,
Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
Probably Mack Reynolds's "How We Banned the Bombs" (_Galaxy_, June
1968, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?52314).
I have that issue of Galaxy (it's in a box in a closet and not on
top) ... that story does fit my memory (which is 5 decades old).
Looks like it has never been reprinted.
On 9/4/26 20:37, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/4/2026 7:41 PM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/4/26 17:28, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/4/2026 10:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by >>>>>>>>> secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
The population bomb went off years ago and although the population
is now
dropping, we are all suffering the terrible effects of overpopulation >>>>> today.
For example, don't think of manmade global warming as being the
fault of
individuals producing too much carbon dioxide themselves... think of >>>>> it as
being the fault of there being too many individuals producing carbon >>>>> dioxide.
We aren't anywhere near at the point of Blish's "We all Die Naked" or >>>>> even "Cities in Flight" but there are just more people than the
earth can
comfortably support out there.
--scott
"The climate doomsayers promised a hell that never arose"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-
confidential/4712177/ climate-doomsayers-promised-hell-never-arose/
Lynn
-a-a-a-a-aBaloney!-a Lynn don't you think the small and large climate
disaster around the World are just what you were promised.-a You may
not live long enough to see the future but your business in Fossil
Fuel has not stopped and it will be far worse than you and your
chosen President are capable of imagining.
-a-a-a-a-aFlash flood in the Grand Canyon is minor.-a Collapse of
the Himalayan glacial dam wiping out down stream villages in
Nepal is a greater one.-a Drought in Europe so that the wrecks
of WW II German warships and the bones of mammoth are exposed
in the bed of the former Beautiful Blue Danube which is now
the muddy trench where the Danube used to flow.-a Wild fires
all over the world and then more flooding.
-a-a-a-a-aLive long enough and you will eat your words about
the Hell in which you will be living.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
Malarkey!-a Bad weather has always happened and always will.
Just 100 miles away from here, there used to be a town called Indianola,
Texas.-a The town was wiped out and many of the 5,000 inhabitants were
killed by a Cat 5 hurricane in 1875.-a Then another Cat 5 hurricane
happened in 1886, again killing many of the inhabitants, and the town
was abandoned.
-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianola,_Texas
And of course there was the Cat 5 hurricane in 1900 that took out the
entire city of Galveston, killing over 10,000 of the inhabitants.
-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
I can bring up thousands of bad weather events just here alone in Texas
before 1900.-a The Mexican Army to resupply Santa Anna's army after he
murdered every person in Goliad and the Alamo camped between the two
banks of the San Bernard river in 1836.-a Most of the 2,500 soldiers and
1,500 camp followers were killed in a flash flood that night with four
feet of water in their camp.
-a-a https://www.tshaonline.org/publications/sea-of-mud
Lynn
So you believe there is no climate change as long as it snows in winter
and that glaciers have receded to hither to unseen degrees just
because of weather?
You probably believe that Slavery was not the causus belli in
the American Civil War. Are you aware that the Texans wrote into the >original constitution that African slaves would never be free in that >Republic? That the Mexican state had outlawed such slavery which is one
of the causes of that violence when the white Texans forced out the
Mexican government?
You may or may not know these facts but the Ocean is heating
up and sooner or later you or your suviviors will smell the stink from
the rotting oceans.
Good luck with all of that Lynn.
.
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
The incentives, for the examples I've seen, are laughably low.
You'd have to subsidize births and parenthood to the point
where it becomes a viable full-time career to make an actual
difference.
On 9/3/2026 9:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:Ask MAGA. They put Trump into office, they may well take him out of
On 9/3/2026 8:53 AM, Paul S Person wrote:It's not falling for the most of the time, but for much of the
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 17:13:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
opopulation bombo ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.a None of my kids, my nieces, or >>>> my nephews are having kids.a My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids.a Having kids is so expensive now in >>>> the USA.
It always was.
We didn't notice because /we weren't paying the bills/.
Its more than just that.a Inflation adjusted income has been steadily
dropping for most of the US for a long time.a More and more of the
wealth is getting concentrated in a smaller and smaller portion of the
population.
population, its been close to flat since the 1970s.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2025/09/17/u-s-household-incomes-over-50-years-the-great-divide
While productivity has increased, less and less of the newly
created wealth makes it back to those who earned it:
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
I wonder when we'll hit the torches and pitchforks horizon.
On 9/4/2026 10:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:Well, not yet, anyway, perhaps.
Lawrence DAOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
opopulation bombo ...
The population bomb went off years ago and although the population is now
dropping, we are all suffering the terrible effects of overpopulation
today.
For example, don't think of manmade global warming as being the fault of
individuals producing too much carbon dioxide themselves... think of it as >> being the fault of there being too many individuals producing carbon dioxide.
We aren't anywhere near at the point of Blish's "We all Die Naked" or
even "Cities in Flight" but there are just more people than the earth can
comfortably support out there.
--scott
"The climate doomsayers promised a hell that never arose"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/4712177/climate-doomsayers-promised-hell-never-arose/
In article <117g781$180sp$1@dont-email.me>,
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 9/4/26 20:37, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/4/2026 7:41 PM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/4/26 17:28, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/4/2026 10:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote: >>>>>>>>>
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by >>>>>>>>>> secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
The population bomb went off years ago and although the population >>>>>> is now
dropping, we are all suffering the terrible effects of overpopulation >>>>>> today.
For example, don't think of manmade global warming as being the
fault of
individuals producing too much carbon dioxide themselves... think of >>>>>> it as
being the fault of there being too many individuals producing carbon >>>>>> dioxide.
We aren't anywhere near at the point of Blish's "We all Die Naked" or >>>>>> even "Cities in Flight" but there are just more people than the
earth can
comfortably support out there.
--scott
"The climate doomsayers promised a hell that never arose"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-
confidential/4712177/ climate-doomsayers-promised-hell-never-arose/
Lynn
-a-a-a-a-aBaloney!-a Lynn don't you think the small and large climate >>>> disaster around the World are just what you were promised.-a You may
not live long enough to see the future but your business in Fossil
Fuel has not stopped and it will be far worse than you and your
chosen President are capable of imagining.
-a-a-a-a-aFlash flood in the Grand Canyon is minor.-a Collapse of
the Himalayan glacial dam wiping out down stream villages in
Nepal is a greater one.-a Drought in Europe so that the wrecks
of WW II German warships and the bones of mammoth are exposed
in the bed of the former Beautiful Blue Danube which is now
the muddy trench where the Danube used to flow.-a Wild fires
all over the world and then more flooding.
-a-a-a-a-aLive long enough and you will eat your words about
the Hell in which you will be living.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
Malarkey!-a Bad weather has always happened and always will.
Just 100 miles away from here, there used to be a town called Indianola, >>> Texas.-a The town was wiped out and many of the 5,000 inhabitants were
killed by a Cat 5 hurricane in 1875.-a Then another Cat 5 hurricane
happened in 1886, again killing many of the inhabitants, and the town
was abandoned.
-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianola,_Texas
And of course there was the Cat 5 hurricane in 1900 that took out the
entire city of Galveston, killing over 10,000 of the inhabitants.
-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
I can bring up thousands of bad weather events just here alone in Texas
before 1900.-a The Mexican Army to resupply Santa Anna's army after he
murdered every person in Goliad and the Alamo camped between the two
banks of the San Bernard river in 1836.-a Most of the 2,500 soldiers and >>> 1,500 camp followers were killed in a flash flood that night with four
feet of water in their camp.
-a-a https://www.tshaonline.org/publications/sea-of-mud
Lynn
So you believe there is no climate change as long as it snows in winter >> and that glaciers have receded to hither to unseen degrees just
because of weather?
You probably believe that Slavery was not the causus belli in
the American Civil War. Are you aware that the Texans wrote into the
original constitution that African slaves would never be free in that
Republic? That the Mexican state had outlawed such slavery which is one
of the causes of that violence when the white Texans forced out the
Mexican government?
You may or may not know these facts but the Ocean is heating
up and sooner or later you or your suviviors will smell the stink from
the rotting oceans.
Good luck with all of that Lynn.
.
My memory is that the glaciers started receding about 11,700 years ago...
Granted I wasn't there.
On 9/4/26 09:04, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 9/4/2026 12:02 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 18:31:38 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Nowadays the economy is the best method of birth control. Even those
who _want_ children can't afford them. Been getting worse for
decades.
-a-a-a-aPoor people traditionally have seen having children as a way to provide for their own old age.
Some countries are introducing economic incentives to make it more
attractive for women to have children. Because they see that as a
worthwhile -- indeed, essential -- investment in their own nationrCOs
future.
IrCOm wondering how far this trend can go ...
The incentives, for the examples I've seen, are laughably low.
-a-a-a Again look up the Tokyo plan.
Most WFH schemes in Japan are hybrid - you're still in the officeYou'd have to subsidize births and parenthood to the point
where it becomes a viable full-time career to make an actual
difference.
pt
-a-a-a-aNot quite. You fail to take account of work from home options and paying for childcare.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
The incentives, for the examples I've seen, are laughably low.
You'd have to subsidize births and parenthood to the point
where it becomes a viable full-time career to make an actual
difference.
That's pretty much what they are doing in Japan. How effective it is,
we will find out.
--scott
On 9/5/2026 10:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer-a <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
The incentives, for the examples I've seen, are laughably low.
You'd have to subsidize births and parenthood to the point
where it becomes a viable full-time career to make an actual
difference.
That's pretty much what they are doing in Japan.-a How effective it is,
we will find out.
--scott
So far, it hasn't been very effective. They are currently
making the subsidies even more generous.
However, imho, they are still laughably low to persuade
people that having kids is a sound idea.
Aside from the financial side, Japanese work culture is
parent-hostile. Sure, there's generous parental leave by
law, but take all of it, and watch your career wither.
pt
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass,
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (ScottIn "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
On 9/5/2026 9:48 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (ScottIn "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed.
It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant.
The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
Both are discussed (along with several other spicy fuel
combos) in one of Scott Manley's videos:
"The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLk2j7_KB0
pt
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
In article <117isd5$23bme$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 9:48 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (ScottIn "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong, >>>> like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed.
It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant.
The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
Both are discussed (along with several other spicy fuel
combos) in one of Scott Manley's videos:
"The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLk2j7_KB0
pt
Is Mooseberry fudge cake included?
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong, >>like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than explosives.
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they
couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than
explosives.
-a-a-a-aI remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket engine was a nuclear ramjet.-a Air was heated by passage through
the engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but came up empty.
-a-a-a-aRecently in the last few years Mr.Putin claimed to have a hyper- sonic rocket bearing multiple warheads which was powered in a similar
fashion but it was likely an idle boast.
-a-a-a-abliss
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they >couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than >explosives.
Recently in the last few years Mr.Putin claimed to have a hyper-sonic
rocket bearing multiple warheads which was powered in a similar
fashion but it was likely an idle boast.
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they
couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than
explosives.
I remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket
engine was a nuclear ramjet. Air was heated by passage through the
engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but
came up empty.
Recently in the last few years Mr.Putin claimed to have a hyper-sonic
rocket bearing multiple warheads which was powered in a similar
fashion but it was likely an idle boast.
On 9/6/26 11:07 AM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they
couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than
explosives.
-a-a-a-a-aI remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a >> rocket engine was a nuclear ramjet.-a Air was heated by passage through
the engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but
came up empty.
Is this maybe Clarke's Prelude to Space?
- Tony
In article <117jvk6$2fadc$1@dont-email.me>,
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they
couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than
explosives.
I remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket >> engine was a nuclear ramjet. Air was heated by passage through the
engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but
came up empty.
Recently in the last few years Mr.Putin claimed to have a hyper-sonic >> rocket bearing multiple warheads which was powered in a similar
fashion but it was likely an idle boast.
Are you familiar with Project Pluto?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Or the old film The Lost Missile?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Missile
On 9/5/2026 9:48 PM, John Savard wrote:I still have an mpeg, downloaded probably in the 90s, showing (IIRC)
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (ScottIn "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed.
It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant.
The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
Both are discussed (along with several other spicy fuel
combos) in one of Scott Manley's videos:
"The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLk2j7_KB0
I remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket engine was a nuclear ramjet. Air was heated by passage through the
engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
On 9/6/26 1:46 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <117isd5$23bme$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer-a <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 9:48 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (ScottIn "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go
wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction >>>>> mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed.
It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant.
The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
Both are discussed (along with several other spicy fuel
combos) in one of Scott Manley's videos:
"The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLk2j7_KB0
pt
Is Mooseberry fudge cake included?
Ha! Excellent.
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they
couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than
explosives.
-a-a-a-aI remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket engine was a nuclear ramjet.-a Air was heated by passage through
the engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but came up empty.
-a-a-a-aRecently in the last few years Mr.Putin claimed to have a hyper- sonic rocket bearing multiple warheads which was powered in a similar
fashion but it was likely an idle boast.
On 2026-09-06, BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
I remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket >> engine was a nuclear ramjet. Air was heated by passage through the
engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
That's the infamous real-life U.S. Project Pluto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 9:48 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (ScottIn "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong, >>>> like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction
mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed.
It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant.
The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
Both are discussed (along with several other spicy fuel
combos) in one of Scott Manley's videos:
"The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLk2j7_KB0
I still have an mpeg, downloaded probably in the 90s, showing (IIRC)
what happens when liquid oxygen meets a barbecue grill.
It' probably out there somewhere, though where I have no idea.
What is even more amazing is that PowerDVD18 will play it.
On 9/6/26 09:12, James Nicoll wrote:
In article <117jvk6$2fadc$1@dont-email.me>,
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they >>>> couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than
explosives.
I remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket >>> engine was a nuclear ramjet. Air was heated by passage through the
engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but
came up empty.
Recently in the last few years Mr.Putin claimed to have a hyper-sonic >>> rocket bearing multiple warheads which was powered in a similar
fashion but it was likely an idle boast.
Are you familiar with Project Pluto?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Actually I was not familiar with it by that name.
nor by its results as that was during the high security
time of the Cold War.
It could be revived as a nuclear rocket engine
using water as the material to be heated and steam to
be the exhaust but should be confined to extra-terrestrial
expeditions.
However I think that Earth may be room enough so
such nuclear rockets should be used for robotic exploration
of material sources such as the asteroid belt and the
collection of very cold objects at the outer rim of
the Solar System.
Or the old film The Lost Missile?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Missile
Never heard of it before. Sounds like typical
1950s era film with non-science elements intruding
to no good reason but the drama of the protagonist
dying in pursuit of saving NYC. I was about 15 yoa
when it came out.
I remember stories of lost A/H bombs accidentally
dropped from bombers but not armed. Those came later.
Thanks though for the URLs James Nicoll.
I found both interesting.
bliss
On 9/6/26 08:14, Tony Nance wrote:
On 9/6/26 11:07 AM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It
apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The
{un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they >>>> couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than
explosives.
-a-a-a-a-aI remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a >>> rocket engine was a nuclear ramjet.-a Air was heated by passage
through the engine which was apparently lined with enriched
fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but
came up empty.
Is this maybe Clarke's Prelude to Space?
- Tony
-a-a-a-aI believe you have it Tony Nance.
-a-a-a-aThank you...
SLAM: The US' Most Insane Missile Project >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h5BOtJdFrY
On 9/6/2026 7:21 AM, Tony Nance wrote:
On 9/6/26 1:46 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <117isd5$23bme$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer-a <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 9:48 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scottinjecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed.
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go
wrong,
like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction >>>>>> mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket. >>>> In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant.
The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
Both are discussed (along with several other spicy fuel
combos) in one of Scott Manley's videos:
"The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLk2j7_KB0
pt
Is Mooseberry fudge cake included?
Ha! Excellent.
'Rocket Candy' comes pretty close:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYxk-y-tU8
pt
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I am currently reading Kurt VonnegutrCOs rCLCatrCOs CradlerCY. I do know that one of the plot elements is a doom-laden substance called rCLIce 9rCY, the invention of which was a very, very, very, very bad idea indeed ...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:06:52 -0400 (EDT), James Nicoll wrote:
Pursuing foolish ideas can be very, very good for plot.
I am currently reading Kurt VonnegutrCOs rCLCatrCOs CradlerCY. I do know that one of the plot elements is a doom-laden substance called rCLIce 9rCY, the invention of which was a very, very, very, very bad idea indeed ...
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
my nephews are having kids.-a My oldest kid just turned 43 and is dead
set against marriage or having kids.-a Having kids is so expensive now in the USA. Lynn
CAT'S CRADLE's portmanteau problem turns it into a slog for me.
CRADLE infuses an excellent story about Ice-9 into a jocularly
adolescent anti- Catholic allegory.
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
-a Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
Perhaps for some.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly
effective was education: once a woman realizes there might be more
to life than having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm
for having them.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Are the anti-science crowd mostly right-wing?
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
Perhaps for some.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.
On 9/6/26 20:06, a425couple wrote:
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
-a Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
Perhaps for some.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.
-a-a-a-aIndeed many do enjoy raising children but just because someone does not enjoy having children it does not mean they are subscribing to
particular points of view whether on the Left or on the Right.-a I wanted
to type Wrong for the Right above but I restrained myself. Sometimes the Right has been correct as in the Eisenhower years with a 91% tax on
the highest incomes.-a Then in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years they gave
the highest incomes the big tax breaks affirmed and demanded by Trump.
-a-a-a-aResult $40 Trillion dollars of National Debt.
Ben Franklin said something about happiness being your expenses being
less than your income. We ignore his advice to the Republic's peril.
-a-a-a-abliss
Are the anti-science crowd mostly right-wing?
For the most part now. Which is curious because back in the sixties they were mostly left-wing. Go figure.
On 9/6/26 20:48, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/6/26 20:06, a425couple wrote:
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
-a Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
Perhaps for some.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.
-a-a-a-a-aIndeed many do enjoy raising children but just because someone
does not enjoy having children it does not mean they are subscribing to
particular points of view whether on the Left or on the Right.-a I wanted
to type Wrong for the Right above but I restrained myself. Sometimes the
Right has been correct as in the Eisenhower years with a 91% tax on
the highest incomes.-a Then in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years they gave
the highest incomes the big tax breaks affirmed and demanded by Trump.
-a-a-a-a-aResult $40 Trillion dollars of National Debt.
I am frustrated at both parties for the size of the National Debt,
but I feel your blaming it on Trump is very wrong.
National Debt is a serious problem.-a Let me remind you of the Democrat's history. The U.S. national debt increased by approximately $8.45
trillion during Joe BidenrCOs four-year presidential term (from January
2021 to January 2025). Key Details: Starting Debt: Around $27.75
trillion when he took office.Ending Debt: Around $36.2 trillion when he
left office.Percentage Increase: About 30.5% over his term.Dollar Comparison: In total dollar terms, this marked the largest nominal
increase in national debt during a single presidential term in U.S.
history.
And if you think "everybody did it" during Covid, - NO, they did not.
Biden was clearly warned that a number of his budgetary actions were
harming the national debt and inflation, but he and his Democrats spent
it anyway. As an example Germany during the same 4 years increased their debt from approximately re42.33 trillion to re42.69 trillion is a 15.45% increase. Even Canada did much better, Canada's federal net debt (accumulated deficit) grew from approximately $1.09 trillion in January
2021 to $1.27 trillion by January 2025. That is 16.5%. Biden and the Democrats blew up our USA debt 30.5%.
Ben Franklin said something about happiness being your expenses being
less than your income. We ignore his advice to the Republic's peril.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
Yes, I'm a big fan of Ben Franklin and his views of the Protestant
Work Ethic.
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 20:06:40 -0700, a425couple wrote:
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly
effective was education: once a woman realizes there might be more
to life than having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm
for having them.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Are the anti-science crowd mostly right-wing?
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Are the anti-science crowd mostly right-wing?
For the most part now. Which is curious because back in the sixties they were mostly left-wing. Go figure.
--scott
I am frustrated at both parties for the size of the National Debt,
but I feel your blaming it on Trump is very wrong.
Ben Franklin said something about happiness being your expenses being
less than your income. We ignore his advice to the Republic's peril.
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:Actually, it /does/ resemble some modernist arguments I have read
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence DAOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
opopulation bombo ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control odrugo that turned out to be spectacularly effective
was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
Perhaps for some.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.Unfortunately, some who claim to be among them are occasionally found
On 9/6/2026 12:57 PM, Paul S Person wrote:Close, but no cigar (the one I have is B&W and the grill spectacularly
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 9:48 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (ScottIn "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels,
Dorsey) wrote:
I was thinking more of stories with terrible ideas that don't go wrong, >>>>> like Heinlein's ships taking off from earth using mercury as reaction >>>>> mass,
Well, mercury is heavy. But Robert Anson Heinlein wasn't the first
person to get the idea of using mercury for reaction mass in a rocket.
injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed.
It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant.
The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
Both are discussed (along with several other spicy fuel
combos) in one of Scott Manley's videos:
"The Most Dangerous Rocket Fuels Ever Tested"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLk2j7_KB0
I still have an mpeg, downloaded probably in the 90s, showing (IIRC)
what happens when liquid oxygen meets a barbecue grill.
It' probably out there somewhere, though where I have no idea.
What is even more amazing is that PowerDVD18 will play it.
There are numerous such videos on YT, many over 15 years old.
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjvj5FjUPE
Global Total Fertility Rate 1960: 4.7
Global Total Fertility Rate 2024: 2.2
The statement sounds like Mr Micawber from "David Copperfield".
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds
nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds,
annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."
On 9/7/2026 12:21 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 20:06:40 -0700, a425couple wrote:
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly
effective was education: once a woman realizes there might be
more to life than having babies, she tends to lose a lot of
enthusiasm for having them.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Are the anti-science crowd mostly right-wing?
The anti-science crowd exists on both sides. One one, you have the
crystal fondling anti-nukes, and on the other, anti-evolutionists
and climate deniers. Antvax is on both.
On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 14:30:10 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
Global Total Fertility Rate 1960: 4.7
Global Total Fertility Rate 2024: 2.2
2.1 is generally accepted as the replacement level. Below that, your >population starts declining.
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Said research being on the public dime, a lot of it Mexican.
I still have an mpeg, downloaded probably in the 90s, showing (IIRC)
what happens when liquid oxygen meets a barbecue grill.
It' probably out there somewhere, though where I have no idea.
Of course, free-market capitalism still gets the credit for making
the U.S. such a rich country to be able to afford to use some tax
money for philanthropy, but the Green Revolution was not a direct
natural result of free-market capitalism.
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
On 9/6/26 20:48, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/6/26 20:06, a425couple wrote:
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
-a Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures
they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth
control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than
having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them.
Perhaps for some.
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.
-a-a-a-aIndeed many do enjoy raising children but just because someone does
not enjoy having children it does not mean they are subscribing to
particular points of view whether on the Left or on the Right.-a I wanted
to type Wrong for the Right above but I restrained myself. Sometimes the
Right has been correct as in the Eisenhower years with a 91% tax on
the highest incomes.-a Then in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years they gave
the highest incomes the big tax breaks affirmed and demanded by Trump.
-a-a-a-aResult $40 Trillion dollars of National Debt.
I am frustrated at both parties for the size of the National Debt,
but I feel your blaming it on Trump is very wrong.
National Debt is a serious problem. Let me remind you of the Democrat's >history. The U.S. national debt increased by approximately $8.45
trillion during Joe BidenrCOs four-year presidential term
On Sun, 06 Sep 2026 09:57:31 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:It looks /very close/, with the same guy handling the LOX, in a darker
I still have an mpeg, downloaded probably in the 90s, showing (IIRC)
what happens when liquid oxygen meets a barbecue grill.
It' probably out there somewhere, though where I have no idea.
Is this it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjPxDOEdsX8
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
And here the grill appears to survive the experience. The one in mine
clearly does not.
On 9/8/2026 12:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:The only one of those functions that maybe can't be electrified is
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily >> for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts). >>
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
fertilizer production.
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/6/26 20:48, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/6/26 20:06, a425couple wrote:
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:Perhaps for some.
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
-a Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures >>>>>>>> they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth >>>>>> control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control rCLdrugrCY that turned out to be spectacularly effective
was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than >>>>> having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them. >>>>
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.
-a-a-a-aIndeed many do enjoy raising children but just because someone does
not enjoy having children it does not mean they are subscribing to
particular points of view whether on the Left or on the Right.-a I wanted >>> to type Wrong for the Right above but I restrained myself. Sometimes the >>> Right has been correct as in the Eisenhower years with a 91% tax on
the highest incomes.-a Then in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years they gave
the highest incomes the big tax breaks affirmed and demanded by Trump.
-a-a-a-aResult $40 Trillion dollars of National Debt.
I am frustrated at both parties for the size of the National Debt,
but I feel your blaming it on Trump is very wrong.
Actually, the blame falls squarely on Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush
and Donald Trump. ALL of whom reduced the taxes on the rich and
did _nothing_ to stem spending. Mr. Clinton left office with a
balanced budget (no deficit). GWB blew that up right away along
with his blatently illegal revenge war with Iraq (huge spending).
The best graph to show effect of the tax cuts this is:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2025/09/17/u-s-household-incomes-over-50-years-the-great-divide
National Debt is a serious problem. Let me remind you of the Democrat's
history. The U.S. national debt increased by approximately $8.45
trillion during Joe BidenrCOs four-year presidential term.
Thanks to prior tax cuts by during republican administrations.
Raise taxes on the rich.
-a-a-a-aThe problem is not the national debt but the Tariffs of
which the present occupant of the Oval Office is so fond.-a He
intends to reuse the Smoot-Hawley Act the tariffs of which
brought on the Great Depression which started in the
Unregulated USA Capitalism of the 1920s and with the imposition
by Congress spread the Depression all over the world.
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily >> for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvestThe only one of those functions that maybe can't be electrified is
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts). >>
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
fertilizer production.
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
There is probably 1,000 years of natural gas left in the USA.
And we are currently flaring about 40% of the natural gas that we
produce in the USA because there is no market for it and the
compressors to put in back in the ground are very expensive.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 18:22:38 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
There is probably 1,000 years of natural gas left in the USA.
Like anything else you have to dig/drill/pump out of the ground, the effective amount of the reserve depends very much on the price you can
get for it.
And we are currently flaring about 40% of the natural gas that we
produce in the USA because there is no market for it and the
compressors to put in back in the ground are very expensive.
So the reserve is actually 40% less than you said it was.
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes.-a Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production.
Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation,-a harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum &
byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.-a There
is probably 1,000 years of natural gas left in the USA.-a And we are currently flaring about 40% of the natural gas that we produce in the
USA because there is no market for it and the compressors to put in back
in the ground are very expensive.
We need to convert most liquid fuel vehicles and heating systems to
natural gas.-a After all, it is 40% water post combustion.
Lynn
-a-a-aClinton added to economic problems by going along with the
Republicans and relaxing the regulations governing banks which
resulted in the problems of 2008.
On 09/09/2026 08:13, BobbieSellers wrote:
-a-a-aClinton added to economic problems by going along with the
Republicans and relaxing the regulations governing banks which
resulted in the problems of 2008.
Resulted in the problems, from FRAUD, of 2008 and later. It is one
of my pet peeves that it is referred to as the GFC as if it was a
force of nature rather than a result of unnatural greed.
It is one of my pet peeves that it is referred to as the GFC as if it
was a force of nature rather than a result of unnatural greed. Your >simplistic summary is great and it is a pity that people weren't aware
of it back then.
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will
have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily >> for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts). >>
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:No, /there/ position appears to be "burn it all up and blame the
On 9/8/2026 12:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:The only one of those functions that maybe can't be electrified is >>fertilizer production.
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrC? ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily >>> for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
While true, that doesn't seem to be the position of the republican
party.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:But that only matters to people who think global warming is a real
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrC? ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily >>> for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
On 9/8/26 09:13, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/6/26 20:48, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 9/6/26 20:06, a425couple wrote:
On 9/2/26 23:55, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:45:27 -0700, Robert Woodward wrote:Perhaps for some.
In article <117a5i0$35q9q$5@dont-email.me>,
a Lawrence DAOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures >>>>>>>>> they will have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>> opopulation bombo ...
IIRC, there was a Harry Harrison short story that featured a birth >>>>>>> control drug that turned out to be too effective (I checked the
ISFDB, but didn't see a title that looked right).
The birth control odrugo that turned out to be spectacularly effective >>>>>> was education: once a woman realizes there might be more to life than >>>>>> having babies, she tends to lose a lot of enthusiasm for having them. >>>>>
But that sounds like a left wingers delusion to me.
Some adults (men and women) like having and raising children.
aaaaIndeed many do enjoy raising children but just because someone does >>>> not enjoy having children it does not mean they are subscribing to
particular points of view whether on the Left or on the Right.a I wanted >>>> to type Wrong for the Right above but I restrained myself. Sometimes the >>>> Right has been correct as in the Eisenhower years with a 91% tax on
the highest incomes.a Then in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years they gave
the highest incomes the big tax breaks affirmed and demanded by Trump. >>>> aaaaResult $40 Trillion dollars of National Debt.
I am frustrated at both parties for the size of the National Debt,
but I feel your blaming it on Trump is very wrong.
Actually, the blame falls squarely on Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush
and Donald Trump. ALL of whom reduced the taxes on the rich and
did _nothing_ to stem spending. Mr. Clinton left office with a
balanced budget (no deficit). GWB blew that up right away along
with his blatently illegal revenge war with Iraq (huge spending).
The best graph to show effect of the tax cuts this is:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2025/09/17/u-s-household-incomes-over-50-years-the-great-divide
Actually cutting taxes on the very well off started
with John F. Kennedy. He was cutting the Eisenhower era taxes
but another rich man cutting taxes on the very well off.
Clinton added to economic problems by going along with the Republicans
and relaxing the regulations governing banks which
resulted in the problems of 2008.
Obama should have paid more attention to the people whose
homes went underwater rather than helping out the financial
institutions which exploiting the relaxed rules brought on the
catastrophic situation.
While I agree taxes on the rich should be raised, I don't see that
National Debt is a serious problem. Let me remind you of the Democrat's >>> history. The U.S. national debt increased by approximately $8.45
trillion during Joe BidenAs four-year presidential term.
The problem is not the national debt but the Tariffs of
which the present occupant of the Oval Office is so fond. He
intends to reuse the Smoot-Hawley Act the tariffs of which
brought on the Great Depression which started in the
Unregulated USA Capitalism of the 1920s and with the imposition
by Congress spread the Depression all over the world.
Republican economics have damaged the Nation over
and over again. Democratic economics have saved it over
and over again but since the Elitist Republicans control
the media you will never see a fair evaluation of the situation
except in print where most will never stick their noses.
Economics is not called the Dismal Science for nothing
but dry economic texts are hard for even me to read...
Present Republican economics may reduce the free USA
to a Corporate Feudal state as the wages to the workers are
considered a reducible expense and if they could have slaves
again they would be very happy.
Thanks to prior tax cuts by during republican administrations.
Raise taxes on the rich.
The only tax cuts which might be equitable would be based
on amount of taxes paid by by employees below the executive level...
We might consider a tax cut based on the amount of government
bonds which are held as a part of the wealth of an individual.
Investment income must be taxed and in a progressive
manner i.e. the more income the higher the taxes.
Why do we have such enormous debt and why are so many
of today's billionaires not simply millionaires as in previous
times?
The rich have dodged taxes to such an extent that the value
of the money has fallen. They inspired wars based on fear of
Communism and then they did not pay the cost of those wars.
Eisenhower understood this and was apparently the last Republican who
could count on more than his fingers. Possibly
due to his military experience he knew the importance of
controlling not only spending but the adequacy of military
funding which was sourced from Taxes.
There would be no depletion of American munitions
if there was not depletion of the income from taxation.
Tariffs are illusionary devices to impose sales taxes on
the American and other peoples.
On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 09:32:55 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:I don't consider the base as separate from the grill.
And here the grill appears to survive the experience. The one in mine >>clearly does not.
Odd, when I watched it, the pillar the grill stood on survived the >experience, but the grill was gone. Unless it fell somewhere I didn't
notice.
On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:41:48 +1200, Titus G wrote:One of the few docudramas I have seen, /The Big Short/, includes an
On 09/09/2026 08:13, BobbieSellers wrote:
aaaClinton added to economic problems by going along with the
Republicans and relaxing the regulations governing banks which
resulted in the problems of 2008.
Resulted in the problems, from FRAUD, of 2008 and later. It is one
of my pet peeves that it is referred to as the GFC as if it was a
force of nature rather than a result of unnatural greed.
Easier house loans for those with lower incomes were popular withAs one of the bond rating companies involved explained: if they didn't
voters. The lenders saw a way to cream more profits, using a
simplistic risk analysis that assumed that defaults would not be
correlated, and so were priced accordingly. But if they were caused by >factors such as an economic downturn that resulted in job losses among >mortgagees en masse, then of course they would be correlated -- and
more likely to occur.
Leaving lenders and borrowers alike to fend for themselves wouldwas not a good idea either. Particularly after they gave the executives-in-charge large annual bonus for "good perormance".Taking
likely have led to a situation that made the Great Depression of the
1930s look like a picnic in the park. Clearly not a palatable outcome Declaring some companies "too big to fail" and shoveling money at them
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like
rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily >>> for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
As one of the bond rating companies involved explained: if they didn't
rate the bond AAA because they knew it was rotten, the issuer would
just take it down the street to a rival rating company and get the commission.
On 9/9/2026 9:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do >>>>> it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only >>>> question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
I really like how you think that technology is static and that methods
of extracting crude oil and natural gas will never improve.
George Mitchell invented Fracking around 1990 and got it to work in the >public forum in 2008. Coupled with Directional Drilling from the 1990s, >that technology changed the world.
There will be more technology
innovations in the future.
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world.
The world has been warming for around 50,000
years, it will continue to warm or go back into a glacial snowball
without us affecting it much.
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world.
not changed the world.-a The world has been warming for around 50,000
years,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/9/2026 9:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence D|ore4raoOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>> |ore4+cpopulation bomb|ore4+N ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do >>>>>> it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only >>>>> question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we >>>>> may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
I really like how you think that technology is static and that methods
of extracting crude oil and natural gas will never improve.
That's not at all an accurate characterization of what I said.
I don't hold with the abiogenic origin of petroleum or CH4
(less than 1% is produced inorganically). Thus it holds that
it _will_ run out. How much is there isn't really relevant;
burning it is a complete waste of a precious resource.
"Yes, natural gas can be produced abiogenically through inorganic
chemical reactions deep within the Earth but this accounts for only
a tiny fraction of global reserves" - wikipedia
George Mitchell invented Fracking around 1990 and got it to work in the
public forum in 2008. Coupled with Directional Drilling from the 1990s,
that technology changed the world.
What it did was allow access to the dregs in a well. Note how quickly
that those fracking wells stop producing - the production curve very
quickly declines hyperbolically. After three years, it's already
produced half the recoverable resource.
When fracking, it takes 1 barrel of oil to produce 2 barrels of oil
(early 20th century wells EROEI was over 100 to 1) in most cases,
sometimes as much as 5:1. Shale/Tight oil is as low as 1:1 in many
cases, which makes extracting it rather pointless. It's unclear how
any future technology can change that, and relying on some magic future technology when we can build solar panels, batteries and windmills much
more economically seems foolish to me.
There will be more technology
innovations in the future.
Indeed, but focused on renewable and other clean technologies, including
the SMR that you're so fond of (none of which have been built yet, and several of the SMR programs are currently paused for various reasons including bankruptcy).
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world.
Only in your dreams, and those of Anthony Watts.
The world has been warming for around 50,000
years, it will continue to warm or go back into a glacial snowball
without us affecting it much.
The world has -never- warmed so quickly.
"Unprecedented speed: Natural transitions, such as coming out
of the last ice age, involved warming of about 4-#C to 7-#C, but
that change took roughly 10,000 years (an average rate of 0.05-#C
to 0.07-#C per century). In contrast, global temperatures have
risen by over 1-#C in less than 100 years."
You cannot support your statements with any actual factual data.
On 9/9/2026 4:06 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/9/2026 9:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence D|ore4raoOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote: >>>>>>>>>
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by >>>>>>>>>> secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>>> |ore4+cpopulation bomb|ore4+N ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes.-a Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism >>>>>>> to do
it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and >>>>>>> India
and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. >>>>>> Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation,-a harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum &
byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the >>>>>> only
question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we >>>>>> may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
I really like how you think that technology is static and that methods
of extracting crude oil and natural gas will never improve.
That's not at all an accurate characterization of what I said.
I don't hold with the abiogenic origin of petroleum or CH4
(less than 1% is produced inorganically).-a Thus it holds that
it _will_ run out.-a-a How much is there isn't really relevant;
burning it is a complete waste of a precious resource.
-a-a "Yes, natural gas can be produced abiogenically through inorganic
-a-a-a chemical reactions deep within the Earth but this accounts for only >> -a-a-a a tiny fraction of global reserves"-a - wikipedia
George Mitchell invented Fracking around 1990 and got it to work in the
public forum in 2008.-a Coupled with Directional Drilling from the 1990s, >>> that technology changed the world.
What it did was allow access to the dregs in a well.-a-a Note how quickly
that those fracking wells stop producing - the production curve very
quickly declines hyperbolically.-a After three years, it's already
produced half the recoverable resource.
When fracking, it takes 1 barrel of oil to produce 2 barrels of oil
(early 20th century wells EROEI was over 100 to 1) in most cases,
sometimes as much as 5:1.-a Shale/Tight oil is as low as 1:1 in many
cases, which makes extracting it rather pointless.-a It's unclear how
any future technology can change that, and relying on some magic future
technology when we can build solar panels, batteries and windmills much
more economically seems foolish to me.
There will be more technology
innovations in the future.
Indeed, but focused on renewable and other clean technologies, including
the SMR that you're so fond of (none of which have been built yet, and
several of the SMR programs are currently paused for various reasons
including bankruptcy).
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world.
Only in your dreams, and those of Anthony Watts.
The world has been warming for around 50,000
years, it will continue to warm or go back into a glacial snowball
without us affecting it much.
The world has -never- warmed so quickly.
-a-a "Unprecedented speed: Natural transitions, such as coming out
-a-a-a of the last ice age, involved warming of about 4-#C to 7-#C, but
-a-a-a that change took roughly 10,000 years (an average rate of 0.05-#C
-a-a-a to 0.07-#C per century). In contrast, global temperatures have
-a-a-a risen by over 1-#C in less than 100 years."
You cannot support your statements with any actual factual data.
Sigh.-a You cannot even be bothered to state where you got your stolen quote.
Lynn
On 9/9/2026 9:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by
secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>> rCLpopulation bombrCY ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes.-a Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do >>>>> it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production.
Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation,-a harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum &
byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only >>>> question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
I really like how you think that technology is static and that methods
of extracting crude oil and natural gas will never improve.
George Mitchell invented Fracking around 1990 and got it to work in the public forum in 2008.-a Coupled with Directional Drilling from the 1990s, that technology changed the world.-a There will be more technology innovations in the future.
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world.-a The world has been warming for around 50,000
years, it will continue to warm or go back into a glacial snowball
without us affecting it much.
Lynn
On 9/9/2026 4:06 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/9/2026 9:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence D|ore4raoOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote: >>>>>>>>>
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>>> |ore4+cpopulation bomb|ore4+N ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do >>>>>>> it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>>>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only >>>>>> question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we >>>>>> may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
I really like how you think that technology is static and that methods
of extracting crude oil and natural gas will never improve.
That's not at all an accurate characterization of what I said.
I don't hold with the abiogenic origin of petroleum or CH4
(less than 1% is produced inorganically). Thus it holds that
it _will_ run out. How much is there isn't really relevant;
burning it is a complete waste of a precious resource.
"Yes, natural gas can be produced abiogenically through inorganic
chemical reactions deep within the Earth but this accounts for only
a tiny fraction of global reserves" - wikipedia
George Mitchell invented Fracking around 1990 and got it to work in the
public forum in 2008. Coupled with Directional Drilling from the 1990s, >>> that technology changed the world.
What it did was allow access to the dregs in a well. Note how quickly
that those fracking wells stop producing - the production curve very
quickly declines hyperbolically. After three years, it's already
produced half the recoverable resource.
When fracking, it takes 1 barrel of oil to produce 2 barrels of oil
(early 20th century wells EROEI was over 100 to 1) in most cases,
sometimes as much as 5:1. Shale/Tight oil is as low as 1:1 in many
cases, which makes extracting it rather pointless. It's unclear how
any future technology can change that, and relying on some magic future
technology when we can build solar panels, batteries and windmills much
more economically seems foolish to me.
There will be more technology
innovations in the future.
Indeed, but focused on renewable and other clean technologies, including
the SMR that you're so fond of (none of which have been built yet, and
several of the SMR programs are currently paused for various reasons
including bankruptcy).
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world.
Only in your dreams, and those of Anthony Watts.
The world has been warming for around 50,000
years, it will continue to warm or go back into a glacial snowball
without us affecting it much.
The world has -never- warmed so quickly.
"Unprecedented speed: Natural transitions, such as coming out
of the last ice age, involved warming of about 4-#C to 7-#C, but
that change took roughly 10,000 years (an average rate of 0.05-#C
to 0.07-#C per century). In contrast, global temperatures have
risen by over 1-#C in less than 100 years."
You cannot support your statements with any actual factual data.
Sigh. You cannot even be bothered to state where you got your stolen quote.
On 9/9/2026 9:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:ObSF: The film /Slaughterhouse Rules/ explores fracking and the debate
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by secretly >>>>>>>> installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>> opopulation bombo ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes. Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do >>>>> it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production. Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation, harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum & byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only >>>> question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we
may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
I really like how you think that technology is static and that methods
of extracting crude oil and natural gas will never improve.
George Mitchell invented Fracking around 1990 and got it to work in the >public forum in 2008. Coupled with Directional Drilling from the 1990s, >that technology changed the world. There will be more technology >innovations in the future.
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world. The world has been warming for around 50,000
years, it will continue to warm or go back into a glacial snowball
without us affecting it much.
On 9/9/26 13:31, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/9/2026 9:50 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/8/2026 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> writes:
On 9/2/26 15:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 9/2/2026 4:47 PM, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 16:43:34 -0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
One of Ben Bova's later works solves the population bomb by >>>>>>>>> secretly
installing in every woman a fertility cap that ensures they will >>>>>>>>> have no more than two babies.
Ah, those were the days, when people took seriously phrases like >>>>>>>> opopulation bombo ...
What a dud that that turned out to be.
Yes.a Allow some scientific research and free market capitalism to do >>>>>> it's thing and food became wholesome and plentiful and China and India >>>>>> and many other countries could feed their populations just fine.
Actually, it's petroleum that underlies modern food production.
Primarily
for fertilizer (and mechanized planting, cultivation,a harvest
and transportation which themselves heavily utilize petroleum &
byproducts).
As the oil runs out (and it will, there's no doubt about that, the only >>>>> question is when), war and more war are the likely outcomes (which we >>>>> may be seeing the leading edge of already).
There is 200 years of verified natural gas reserves in the USA.
You do understand that oil and natural gas are
not the same, correct?
over half those reserves (58%) are shale gas, the rest
are coalbed methane, about 1/7th of which is economically
viable to extract.
Extracting and burning all that CH4 will certainly
increase global air and ocean temperatures.
I really like how you think that technology is static and that methods
of extracting crude oil and natural gas will never improve.
George Mitchell invented Fracking around 1990 and got it to work in the
public forum in 2008.a Coupled with Directional Drilling from the 1990s,
that technology changed the world.a There will be more technology
innovations in the future.
As for burning all those hydrocarbons, the amount combusted to date has
not changed the world.a The world has been warming for around 50,000
years, it will continue to warm or go back into a glacial snowball
without us affecting it much.
Lynn
You live in a dream Lynn. We have heard all about fracking and how it
contaminates ground water and fills the vicinity with carcinogens...
You refuse to believe that science and technology can advance
to replace our use of Fossil Fuels and that it will be better to keep
the poison in the ground where it has been secured from interfering with
the life that depended on it in the Carboniferous Era, but which has
advanced past the ferns that produced the Fossil Fuels.
bliss
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. (Mark Twain)
On 9/5/26 23:41, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 01:06:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
In "Ignition!" by John D Clark, *the* book on liquid rocket fuels, injecting mercury into a rocket ignition chamber is discussed. It apparently went as far as static tests.
They also discussed using Dimethyl Mercury as a propellant. The {un}safety aspects of that are mindblowing.
One common fallacy from the early part of the 20th century involved
looking at the power of available explosives, and concluding that they couldnrCOt produce enough thrust to lift a rocket into space.
The fallacy lay in the fact that fuels hold a lot more energy than explosives.
I remember an excellent story from the 1950s or earlier where a rocket
engine was a nuclear ramjet. Air was heated by passage through the
engine which was apparently lined with enriched fissionable material
and the hot air which might be loaded with radioactive contamination
was the rocket's exhaust.
i searched at length yesterday for the title and author but
came up empty.
Recently in the last few years Mr.Putin claimed to have a hyper-sonic
rocket bearing multiple warheads which was powered in a similar
fashion but it was likely an idle boast.
bliss
by saving humanity or bits of it which is also very, very good for plot.
In article <117g5gb$17dh9$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
Keith Laumer's Bolo in Last Command and Relic of War state the opposite
by saving humanity or bits of it which is also very, very good for plot.
Okay, I had never read the Bolo stories, and I have had a number of people recommend them in the past few years, so I bought a copy of The Compleat
Bolo and read it.
I think "Last Command" definitely supports my thesis of the danger of leftover old combat machines, but "Relic of War" does show one saving
people in a good way. So one for two, which isn't bad.
I will say: these stories are very well-plotted but not all that well-written. So much better could have been done with them. I
am glad I read the stories but I don't feel an urge to reread them
like I do with great SF.
--scott
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:10:41 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,957 |
