Conservation leads to what you might call a taliban society.
Because the Native Americans are just like the Taliban. Kill em all! Wait, that's exactly how America thinks. Hey, are you an American or something? Conservation = Taliban-lke poisonous species. I love it. You will be a serious contender against Palin in the 2012 primaries.
Why rockets?
I don't really know the first thing about getting an asteroid into our orbit, but would rockets really be the best way? What about harnessing energy from strategically placed nuclear explosions. We could calculate the minimal trajectory modifications required (versus cost and time) to reach the earths orbit. Even if it takes 50-100 years, if we are persistent, then eventually we'll have a steady flow for mining.
Yeah, the author struck me as an idiot too.
His logic against green roofs was non-existent. Green roofs are a good idea, and not necessarily a maintenance nightmare. You don't need to grow a lush garden with many species, as the author implies in his joking ignorance. There are specific grasses known to minimize problems, and my guess is we'll engineer even better species to make green roofs even more attractive and longer lasting than their asphalt counterparts.
And fewer windows aren't necessarily better. You need to strategically place windows. Try a pergola with vines for green cover in the summer. Also use shade trees to prevent some sun beating down on your roof, and to aid microclimate control in the areas near the house. Further, with proper wind-blocks in the winter, you can change the wind patterns resulting in a more favorable pressure envelope that reduces leakage.
A house isn't just a single structure, but should be designed around it's location. Estimating energy and resource cost is a realistic goal, and if you can't, then don't assume noone can.
We don't build airplanes with flapping wings either, machines can emulate the functionality of a living being without need to simulate the exact details.
This isn't quite right. You can functionally emulate something. But "functionally" and "emulate" all depend on how complex your model is of that thing. To "approximate the behavior" means we first need to understand the behavior. This requires assumptions. Things can (and do) get complicated quickly.
We aren't responsible enough as a society at viewing all that information fairly to be trusted with it indiscriminately.
And why not? I hear this argument so many times, it has to be one of the greatest unsubstantiated claims of all time. Greatest, in the sense that this logic more than anything else, reinforces our ignorance and our ignorant obedience to the powers that tell the big lie. The problem is that war is a racket, in that few people truly understand what is going on. Not because they can't handle it and it's beneficial, as you unsubstantiatingly suggest, but because if people _really_ knew, there would be mass civilian outrage.
So the real sitaution, perhaps what you mean to say, is this: The government lies all the fuckin time. In order to tell a big lie, big misconceptions must be held by the public to prevent outrage in a "democracy" where people believe they really are in charge (hey, how can we responsibly elect our leaders, if as you suggest, we can't handle the information that our leaders are elected to act upon? A bit of a contradiction that results in leaders electing themselves... sound familiar? You like it this way?)
So now, when information is leaked, big media, which is on the same side as the fuckin government that lies, needs to put their own spin on it. So now you have true stories creating instability because of a backlog of lies, and it appears the true story is creating the problem.
Lucky for you, "We aren't responsible enough as a society" is just not something that you can ever substantiate, so you kinda get a free pass here because I can't prove you're wrong, but the let the record show the tactics you employ to make your case, and what contradictions they imply.
Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous