Re: Asteroid vs. Dinosaurs [and all other life]]

[rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)]

In my absence, listproc attempted to inappropriately filter out a few
messages.  Since they're not too out of date, I'm going to foward them
here again.  My apologies if you think the conversations have drifted
far enough away that I shouldn't have bothered.  

Also, while I'm here, for unknown reasons, Kevin Padian is not
currently lurking.  Feel free to post wild fantasies about pterosaur
locomotion without fear of getting dressed down ;-)

  Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 18:03:20 +1000
  To: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu
  From: pwillis@ozemail.com.au (Paul Willis)


  >GSP

  Wrote quite a piece about how mass extinctions will be unimportant
  because we are all going to be robots it fifty years. Wow, pass the
  ice. And he started the post with -
  
  >I am perpetually amazed at the anthrocentric nature of human
  >thought.

  Sorry, mate, I am going to have to sink the slipper here.

  Firstly, mass extinctions are important, particularly if you are
  about to be involved in one.

  Secondly, the impending one is different because of the timescale
  involved and the fact that it is "self inflicted", therefore
  potentially avoidable.
  
  As for the future of humanity inside a computer, in fifty years time
  the earths population will be in excess of 10 billion people and
  more likely around 15 billion. Do you really think that our
  societies will be so advanced and that there will be enough raw
  materials to build and provide these computer bodies for every one?
  Or did you just have the rich people of the earth in mind? You
  certainly didn't appear to consider any other form of life yet you
  are amazed at the anthrocentric nature of human thought!
  
  Let us be realistic: we are facing environmental disaster and, given
  past experiences, our species is unlikely to survive and we are
  likely to take lots of other species with us. Creating possible life
  rafts for a select few will does nothing to face up to the problems.

  Cheers, Paul

  pwillis@ozemail.com.au

  Five points to all readers who realised that there is no such thing
  as a phacoptid trilobite. Lose the five marks if you didn't make the
  logical connection and tried to see the image anyway.