stinnett@plains.UUCP (M.G. Stinnett) (04/07/90)
In article <1990Apr6.015105.3143@world.std.com> madd@world.std.com (jim frost) writes: >stinnett@plains.UUCP (M.G. Stinnett) writes: >>Yes, I've heard of a consumption tax. The best sort of this tax is >>simply supply and demand. If I buy a lot of something, the price goes >>up and I pay more. > >Really? Buy a Sparcstation. Buy ten Sparcstations. If you buy ten, >each costs less. This holds for most industries (eg "value pak" >food packaging) since it's usually about as easy to make ten of >something as one of something. You're talking about small scale. Now if, say, 100,000 of us go out and try to buy ten Sparcstations each, then most assuredly the price will go up (initially). Extended further, if we produce enough demand that Sparcstations are in short supply because of shortages of parts or raw materials, then the price will stay up or increase. You're confusing supply and demand with economies of scale. >Of course if you meant that ten Sparcstations will cost more >cumulatively than one, I would tend to agree with that :-). > >>Finally, your comment about those evil corporations enslaving people at >>$4 per hour to flip burgers: You know, no one has to work for McDonalds. >>They are free to sell their labor to the highest bidder. > >There are many areas in this country where you take what you can get. >Depends on the economy. I won't even go into foreign economies. In every area of the country you take what you can get. In some areas there is a shortage of labor, so you can get substantially more than in other areas. Over the very long term this will tend to equalize. >>A few inherit. Most millionaires worked hard and used their brains. > >Mmm. "Most"? > Yes, most. Making a million isn't as hard as it used to be due to inflation. But another poster mentioned that family fortunes rarely increase. This is true; there are some exceptions. But usually either the kids or grandkids manage to disperse the wealth or spend it. But there's a lot of folks with good ideas and a willingness to work hard and take risks. Look how many people became millionaires when Apple went public. --M. G. > >jim frost >saber software >jimf@saber.com
keithd@anvil.oz (Keith Duddy) (04/09/90)
stinnett@plains.UUCP (M.G. Stinnett) writes: >Besides, profits on stock sales are taxed. Ever hear of "capital gains?" Yip - We hava a capital gains tax in Australia - and the opposition wants to get rid of it. Ostensible Reason: people who don't manage their superanuation properly wil pay 3% on on it, (nothing to do with the big bussiness lobby.) >Finally, your comment about those evil corporations enslaving people at >$4 per hour to flip burgers: You know, no one has to work for McDonalds. >They are free to sell their labor to the highest bidder. But for many ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >teenagers and others, that $4 per hour job is the first step on the way >to bigger and better jobs. "free" is a very strange word in this context - there is no higher bidder for these people. I worked for a Burger King franchise here and I know that the only other work I could get was delivering pamphlets at $20/thousand (effectively $2 / hr). These companies exploit - explaining how it fits into the capitalist system doesn't make it right. >However, this will change with the new minimum wage law. The higher >wages push the price of human workers much higher than the cost of the >automatic inserter. He has to make a profit for his stockholders, and >he can no longer justify the higher cost of the students he employs. >The new machine is on the way; when it comes, most of those students >will have to find other jobs, if they can. (the hours were nearly >ideal for students; but too bad.) >If you force McDonalds to pay more, they will respond by either automating >as many of the jobs as they can, or they will raise the prices. If the >new prices are more than I'm willing to pay, then they will go out of >business and no one will have a job Fine - great - no-one wants to crappy jobs like cooking burgers. If we can automate them all it would be wonderful - but you avoid the issue here. My original point is that full employment should no longer be our prime social goal. We will progress towards a state of partial employment as we automate - rid yourself of the idea that working is everything that makes a person worthwhile... >Labor is just another raw material. You can dictate the price to a certain >extent, but if you go too far you will screw up the demand and everything People are NOT raw material - they each intrinsically valuable, their labour is not representative of their worth. (My first premise.) Hence they each deserve a quality life without regard to their productive status. (This follows from other premises too - e.g. handicapped people should be given quality of life, old people should not be bumped off when they cease to be productive, women who look after children should be given economic independence. Education should be free because knowledge is invaluable, and everyone the same rights to learn - once again - regardless of the economic importance of the knowledge i.e. History is as important as economics is as important as art.) You may argue that old people are not capable of doing productive work, and are therefore exceptions, and that people who can work should work. Here is our problem - there is enough wealth (and thanks to technology there is ever increasing efficiency in creating objects and services repesenting wealth) but there are not enough jobs, and there is not enough oppotunities for everyone to be comfortable. This means that the premises, and goals underlying the current system are deficient. The capitalist myth is that there is EQUAL opportunity for all - look at Iacoca - look at Buck Rogers, etc, they made it from nothing. I would argue that this is irrelevant. While there are millions sleeping in gutters, while the 3rd world starves, there is a problem, and saying "Look at Iacoca" isn't going to feed them. I challenge you to find the humanity in each person (not the units of labour), to wish for the health and comfort of each person, and to change the premises apon which you can justify the current state of affairs, and then to work with others who care to find an equitable way of bringing about a solution. >they win. If not, they loose. Jobs and Wozniak sold their van and HP >calculator, respectively, to raise the money to start Apple. They won >big. Many others did not. But that's the way it works in a free market. >Had they not risked, they could have lived comfortably working for Atari >or AT&T. But they had a good idea and good timing and became millionaires. >Should we penalize them for igniting the information age? Lets not penalise people - but let's not be under the misapprehension that we have a "free market", so many industries have cartels and dirty deals, or government regulations to stop this being the case that the concept can only really apply to small subsets of the economic picture - and even there it doesn't benefit all the people much of the time. Modern Capitalism != Free Enterprise, lets make this another premise, and talk pros and cons based on it. I can see benefits - the eastern bloc provides a stark contrast... but more on this later. _______________________________________________________________________ __ | /_/ __ o _/ /_ / ) __/ __/ | keithd@anvil.oz.au / \ (-' ( ( / / o /_ ' (_( (_/ (_/ (__/ o | (07)870 4999 Its so easy to laugh, its so / | Stallion Technologies easy to hate - it takes guts (_/ | PO Box 954, Toowong, to be gentle and kind. [Morrisey] | 4066, Australia. [Disclaimer: Stallion Technologies actually encourage creative thought - but they don't want to be involved with creative litigation.]
garyt@ios.Convergent.COM (Gary Tse) (04/10/90)
| In article <3994@plains.UUCP> stinnett@plains.UUCP (M.G. Stinnett) writes: | >Labor is just another raw material. | | Labor is human beings. Labor is you and I, our lives. | When you put a price on that you pervert the meaning of our lives. This makes for nice rhetorics, but it is simply not true. If the reason for human existence is labor, then it MIGHT be perversion to place a price upon it. But of course object of living is not labor. Work is simply one of the many things we do. Or are you using "labor" to mean the set of persons who performs work for a business enterprise? This is a nice but unfortunately outdated concept. Look around you. Labor is not exclusively HUMAN labor any more. BTW, why is it perversion to place a value on human lives? Do you mean that you do NOT place a value on your life? If a life has no value, why go on living? | >You can dictate the price to a certain | >extent, but if you go too far you will screw up the demand and everything | >will break down. The new minimum wage probably won't affect too many jobs; | >say a few million teenagers will loose out. Inflation has helped mitigate | >the impact. But if you raise it to, say, $6 per hour, you'll put a lot | >of business and people out of work completely. Then you can expect the | >black market to take over and fill in the gaps, but then you won't get | >the tax revenues to pay for all the other makework programs. | | This cost analysis is beside the main point, but unfortunately | it is the main point to most people today. | Humanity cannot be measured in terms of dollars. Now, nothing you said is strictly false. The cost analysis really has NOTHING to do with humanity. I agree with that, and I think most folks will agree that there is more to life than just dollars and cents. However, you CANNOT invalidate the cost analysis by pointing out its lack of relation to humanity. You have to attack the cost analysis on its own merit. I have yet to see this done. But I have to commend you on your rhetorics again. You really are punching all the correct gut-level emotional response buttons. | >Finally, your comment about those evil corporations enslaving people at | >$4 per hour to flip burgers: You know, no one has to work for McDonalds. | >They are free to sell their labor to the highest bidder. But for many | >teenagers and others, that $4 per hour job is the first step on the way | >to bigger and better jobs. | | If wages are allowed to fall to what the market can get away with, | people working those jobs will not be able to earn a living. | Well, they're free to not earn a living, one may say, if nobody who'll | pay more wants them and the job they have won't pay them more. | Actually, people are not free to just not earn a living. | People must earn a living; that's a constant which conflicts with and | must take precidence over market demands. Hold it. People MUST earn a living? Where does this moral imperative come from? Again, this is a clever sleight of hand. In today's society, a person must earn a living in order to live in a reasonable manner. So indeed you can claim that one has an imperative to work, as it is an extension of the imperative to live. But you are implying something else here. You are saying that one not only has an imperative to earn a living, one also has the imperative to ensure that EVERYONE ELSE also earns a living. This is a much more suspect statement, and its validity and practicality is recently much questioned (re collapse of communist economies). Maybe it is true that I have a moral obligation to pay for my neighbor's daughter's braces. But you will have to prove that to me with a shotgun. | I'm not an economist, and I'm not claiming that our lives are better | with or without a minimum wage. I'm complaining about the | overall way Mr. Stinnett is approching the whole issue of labor. Sir, you may not be an economist, but you should consider a career in politics. May god have mercy on us all. -- Gary Tse, garyt@ios.Convergent.COM || ..!pyramid!ctnews!ios!garyt tse@soda.Berkeley.EDU || ..!ucbvax!soda!tse tse@netcom.UUCP || ..!amdahl!netcom!tse "We are errant knaves all; trust none of us."
josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (04/10/90)
Duddy replies to Stinnet: "... Here is our problem - there is enough "wealth (and thanks to technology there is ever increasing efficiency in "creating objects and services repesenting wealth) but there are not enough "jobs, and there is not enough oppotunities for everyone to be comfortable. Who sez there is enough wealth? You may think the ultimate goal of humanity is to sit around picking fleas off each other, but I have higher aspirations than that. I won't be happy until each person can have his or her OWN moon rocket or super collider or space telescope. I won't be happy until each person can have these things because they have each produced that much value themselves. If all you want from life is a happy family and nice house in the suburbs, I say you have no vision. I say technology gives us the opportunity for each and every single individual person to be an *honest* selfmade billionaire. Would you want to reduce everyone in the world to wretched, grinding poverty on the edge of starvation--provided it could be done equally? Their only thought, a dim groping for their next bowl of cold, thin, gruel? Absolutely equal in body, mind, and spirit? Compared to the future I envision, that is exactly what you are doing. Compared to its potential, the present human condition is a wretched animal-like existence. ".... I challenge you to find the humanity "in each person (not the units of labour), to wish for the health and "comfort of each person, ... I challenge you, on the contrary, to find the god in the human beast, to base your aspirations on something more than bodily comforts, to find a system of values that spring from something higher than your stomach. How can you tell us that people are not to be judged in terms of the goods and services they produce, but then turn around and judge the social system solely in terms of the goods and services it provides them? --JoSH
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) (04/10/90)
JoSh's reply to Duddy reply to Stinnet: > >"... Here is our problem - there is enough >"wealth (and thanks to technology there is ever increasing efficiency in >"creating objects and services repesenting wealth) but there are not enough >"jobs, and there is not enough oppotunities for everyone to be comfortable.> > >Who sez there is enough wealth? You may think the ultimate goal >of humanity is to sit around picking fleas off each other, but I >have higher aspirations than that. It's not that there's enough wealth, it's that certain very few people have TOO MUCH wealth.. personally I have nothing against someone wanting to accumalate 1, 5 , 10 even 20 million dollars.. it's when they keep on accumulating it after that point has been reached that they are doing it SOLELY to accumulate more wealth, often at the expense of ruining the lives of others. What's needed is some sort of progrressive wealth tax, so that truly excess wealth can be redistributed.. how to do this without destroying investment in new ventures I don't know, but the concentration of wealth from the many to the few has to be slowed. > I won't be happy until each >person can have his or her OWN moon rocket or super collider or >space telescope. I won't be happy until each person can have these >things because they have each produced that much value themselves. >If all you want from life is a happy family and nice house in the >suburbs, I say you have no vision. I say technology gives us the >opportunity for each and every single individual person to be an >*honest* selfmade billionaire. Why is this?? Many people don't want a moon rocket or super collider! Me, I'd be happy with a nice houce, a convertible , a truck, and a studio to do my sculpture in. What I'm interested in doing in no way will ever make be a billionaire.. The same goes for say, a poet, or for most people not interested in business. Maybe in years to come technology will give us that capability, but not now, not with society based on money and wealth the way it is. >Would you want to reduce everyone in the world to wretched, grinding >poverty on the edge of starvation--provided it could be done equally? >Their only thought, a dim groping for their next bowl of cold, thin, >gruel? Absolutely equal in body, mind, and spirit? No, but those who are in wrteched, grinding poverty should not be.. And just how do you propose to have them use technology to be and honest selfmade billionaire........ And, don't tell me about how if Donald trump's billions were split up that would only be $1 per person! What if it were used intelligently??? For example, take 100 billion dollars and spend 10 million dollars in 10,000 locations worldwide for ultra-cheap housing, medical facilities, and farming improvements. True, by U.S. standards, 10 million goes fast, but it buys an awful awful lot of grain seed, poor quality livestock, and cheap cement. Andwhere to get this 100 billion?? easy, tax everyone with an income of >1 million$ at an increment of 2%/million income. (ie, 1M$ pays 38%, 2M$pays 40% on excess, 3M$pays42%) In addition to this, intoduce a progressive WEALTH tax, say 1% per 10 million per year. Yes, I know, the two together set an upper limit somewhere around 50 or 60 million I suppose on the amount of wealth a single person can control, but is that so bad???? And No, this doesn't neccesarilly mean the destruction of the economy as vast stock empires are sold to raise cash, as there's no reason why this coudn't be transferred directly as stock.
news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) (04/11/90)
In article <2889@rodan.acs.syr.edu> isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >It's not that there's enough wealth, it's that certain very few people >have TOO MUCH wealth.. personally I have nothing against someone wanting >to accumalate 1, 5 , 10 even 20 million dollars.. it's when they keep >on accumulating it after that point has been reached that they are doing it >SOLELY to accumulate more wealth, often at the expense of ruining the lives >of others. What's needed is some sort of progrressive wealth tax, >so that truly excess wealth can be redistributed.. how to do this without >destroying investment in new ventures I don't know, but the concentration >of wealth from the many to the few has to be slowed. What JoSH is saying is that even if all the wealth in the world were re- distributed, it would still be almost nonexistent compared to the amounts of wealth we may be able to acquire through appropriate use of technology. And JoSH unfortunately didn't state that he's basing his argument on a little book called _Engines_of_Creation_, by a chap named K. Eric Drexler. I personally believe the book should be required reading for anyone who reads this newsgroup, and that applies ESPECIALLY to people who are par- ticipating in this discussion. >> I won't be happy until each >>person can have his or her OWN moon rocket or super collider or >>space telescope. I won't be happy until each person can have these >>things because they have each produced that much value themselves. >>If all you want from life is a happy family and nice house in the >>suburbs, I say you have no vision. I say technology gives us the >>opportunity for each and every single individual person to be an >>*honest* selfmade billionaire. (Whew! A little harsh there, JoSH! "No vision"? Not everyone WANTS to be a selfmade billionaire....) >for most people not interested in business. Maybe in years to come technology >will give us that capability, but not now, not with society based on >money and wealth the way it is. What I find fallacious in these wealth-restructuring arguments is precisely this: perhaps someday we could restructure the economic system around one of these saner proposals, but not now, not with society based on money and wealth the way it is. I can't see any reasonable way to shift the massive (incomprehensibly so) inertia of the world's economic and political systems, especially if what one is shifting them towards is so radically different as many of these proposals are. The best chance I can see is to change the rules of the game, to change the meaning of wealth and production, through... well, check out _Engines_ for details. And technological progress tends to be market-driven, so current society will actually help to drive the process. >>Would you want to reduce everyone in the world to wretched, grinding >>poverty on the edge of starvation--provided it could be done equally? >>Their only thought, a dim groping for their next bowl of cold, thin, >>gruel? Absolutely equal in body, mind, and spirit? > >No, but those who are in wrteched, grinding poverty should not be.. >And just how do you propose to have them use technology to >be and honest selfmade billionaire........ Ah ha! Now there's the rub, isn't it? And you omitted JoSH's assertion that compared to the wealthy future he envisions, _all_ _of_ _us_, no matter how rich, _are_ in the midst of complete poverty. >And, don't tell me about how if Donald trump's billions were split up >that would only be $1 per person! What if it were used intelligently??? >For example, take 100 billion dollars and spend 10 million dollars in >10,000 locations worldwide for ultra-cheap housing, medical facilities, >and farming improvements. True, by U.S. standards, 10 million goes fast, >but it buys an awful awful lot of grain seed, poor quality livestock, and >cheap cement. Great. If you can find a reasonable way to convince Trump, let me know. Even better, earn it yourself and then go do it! But simply saying "clearly the best solution would be to take X dollars from Y rich people and spend them in Z ways, which would make everyone a lot better off," while it may be true, doesn't come any closer to solving the problem of actually _doing_ so. This is a problem I see with all of these proposals, which is why I haven't been following them very closely. Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a jellinghaus-robert@CS.Yale.EDU | bad decision being made out of sheer ignor- ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | ance, pause, and think of hypertext." {everyone}!decvax!yale!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
jwm@STDC.JHUAPL.EDU (Jim Meritt) (04/11/90)
>(Whew! A little harsh there, JoSH! "No vision"? Not everyone WANTS >to be a selfmade billionaire....) *humph* (sound effect of air pushed out, no vocal cord use) The same people who dream for immortality don't know what to do with themselves on a sunday afternoon. The crowd that doesn't know what to do will not know what to do. I wish they would get out of the way for those who do. Those who say "__________ cannot be done!" will not do it. EVERYONE on this list has access to more raw power, more information, better food, better housing, more comfort,.... than any of the Roman emperors. Those who don't want to march ahead: feel free to sit in the mud. Jim Meritt
josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (04/11/90)
Rob Jellinghaus writes:
And JoSH unfortunately didn't state that he's basing his argument on a
little book called _Engines_of_Creation_, by a chap named K. Eric Drexler.
I personally believe the book should be required reading for anyone who
reads this newsgroup, and that applies ESPECIALLY to people who are par-
ticipating in this discussion.
Actually I have mentioned EoC on this newsgroup before, but I forgot to
give references:
Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,
by K. Eric Drexler (foreword by Marvin Minsky)
Anchor Library of Science, Anchor/Doubleday, NY, 1987
ISBN 0-385-19973-2
However, EOC/nanotech is not the only source that one can base a
radical post-human futures outlook on. Another book I've mentioned
here is:
Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence
By Hans Moravec; Harvard Univ Press, 1988
ISBN 0-674-57616-0
I reccomend these two books as an antidote to ALL the political
idiocy, on ALL sides, of which we have been seeing here too much of
late. Compared to the real potentialities (and the real tough
problems these possibilities raise!) most current-day concerns
begin to resemble the War of Jenkins' Ear.
What is of greatest importance is that we should go into this
future with a sound and consistent moral philosophy in hand.
When Mr. Duddy trots out his ends-justifies-the-means and
don't-look-past-the-symptoms ideas, it is mandatory to point
out where they will lead in the end.
The major question is simply, what will the superhuman intelligences
of 2100 be? I think there are two possible answers:
(1) The descendants, children if you will, extensions, and
augmentations of human intellects
(2) The mechanizations of the bureaucratic processes of
corporations and the State
Guess which one will happen if we just sit around and let
nature take its course?
--JoSHpmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (04/12/90)
In article <9004101958.AA23998@stdc.jhuapl.edu>, jwm@STDC.JHUAPL.EDU (Jim Meritt) writes: > EVERYONE on this list has access to more raw power, more information, > better food, better housing, more comfort,.... than any of the Roman > emperors. Absolutely true. However, one has to question to what extent all of these benefit us. e.g. our "better food" and more comfort have led to a lifestyle that is distinctly unhealthy- witness the prominence of heart disease and stress symptoms that are incurred in earning these things. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the resources that support these things are taken from the third world at ripoff prices. I'm not suggesting a cataclysmic end to this situation, but there is no doubt that the hugely wasteful techological lifestyle that we lead in the West has to be moderated. Even the Roman empire came to an end.
news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) (04/12/90)
In article <1472@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: > I'm not suggesting a cataclysmic end to this situation, but there is >no doubt that the hugely wasteful techological lifestyle that we lead in the >West has to be moderated. Even the Roman empire came to an end. Hogwash. Point 1: I can see little chance that the West will voluntarily lower its standard of living in order to save the third world or the planet. People just aren't that non-self-interested. Point 2: even if the West did do such a thing, we would still be in deep trouble, planetarily, from such things as the destruction of the rain forest and the global use of petroluem fuels feeding the greenhouse effect. The only chance I think we have is to create a technology that DOESN'T waste resources or pollute; and I've mentioned my references (_Engines_of_Creation_ in previous articles. Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a jellinghaus-robert@CS.Yale.EDU | bad decision being made out of sheer ignor- ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | ance, pause, and think of hypertext." {everyone}!decvax!yale!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) (04/12/90)
> Absolutely true. However, one has to question to what extent all of > these benefit us. e.g. our "better food" and more comfort have led to a > lifestyle that is distinctly unhealthy- witness the prominence of heart > disease and stress symptoms that are incurred in earning these things. The average life expectency during the time of the Roman Emperors was ~40 yrs. Today it's ~75 yrs. Yet our lifestyle is distinctly unhealthy. Go figure. - reg --- Rick Genter reg%lti.uucp@bu.edu Language Technology, Inc.
bobk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Robert Kinne) (04/12/90)
In article <9004121351.AA08723@lti2.lti.uucp> reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: > >The average life expectency during the time of the Roman Emperors was ~40 yrs. >Today it's ~75 yrs. Yet our lifestyle is distinctly unhealthy. Go figure. > Our modern sedentary lifestyle, coupled with high animal fat diet, probably isn't too different from the lifestyle of the prosperous few throughout history. One difference is the conquering and great reduction of premature deaths due to disease and poor hygiene. The mother who died following child-birth, and the teenager who died from measles, and the family wiped out by smallpox, or cholera, or bubonic plague never had a chance to develop heart disease or cancers. The soldier or worker who died of loss of blood or infection following an injury didn't have to worry about their cholesterol levels. We all die of something. When a large fraction of the population die before age 30, the causes are different than when most survive to 70+ years of age. Deaths from heart disease due to stress, lack of activity, smoking, or clogged arteries are *extremely* rare in the population before age 40, and become the dominant cause of death after about age 60. Our longer lifespan is primarily due to better sanitation, better medical treatment, and conquering of the fatal infectious diseases common in other eras. Further cleaning of air, water, and food, combined with sensible diet and exercise, and not smoking, is the main reason that lifespan has been steadily increasing through the last 15 or so years, and this trend will probably continue for another 20 years. It seems to be the case that the human organism has a design life of about 85 years, plus or minus about 15. Deaths before this time are usually due to outside causes, which can be reduced or mitigated. "Being a king isn't as easy as it looks, Peachey."
jcp@decuac.DEC.COM (Jolly C. Pancakes) (04/13/90)
In article <9004121351.AA08723@lti2.lti.uucp>, reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: > The average life expectency during the time of the Roman Emperors was ~40 yrs. > Today it's ~75 yrs. Yet our lifestyle is distinctly unhealthy. Go figure. Remember that "average life expectancy" is just that, an average. The "average" reader often sees that figure and gets a mental picture of a society in which a bunch of greybearded 35-year olds are tottering around and falling over dead. Rather, it's the average of the large number of babies who died of diarrhea before age two, the children who died of disease before age 10, the agricultural workers who died of accidents before age 30 and the girls and women who died in childbirth before age 25. There were people who lived well into their sixties and seventies, including several Roman senators, and generally people who lived that long were healthy to start with. THe big advances that we have made as a society in prolonging the average life expectancy have been in public health - that is, sanitation and vaccinations. Ironically, for a long time "advances" in medicine caused death rates for women in childbirth to go *up* as doctors with bizarre notions of treatment took over for midwives. -- jcpatilla jcp@decuac.dec.com "Fling your beavers aloft!"
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (04/13/90)
In article <1472@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: >In article <9004101958.AA23998@stdc.jhuapl.edu>, jwm@STDC.JHUAPL.EDU (Jim Meritt) writes: >> EVERYONE on this list has access to more raw power, more information, >> better food, better housing, more comfort,.... than any of the Roman >> emperors. > Furthermore, there is no doubt that the resources that support these >things are taken from the third world at ripoff prices. "Ripoff prices" like those that made Kuwait one of the richest nations in the world during the 70s? (If any third worlders can blame any Westerners for their economic condition, it should be the Arabs blaming the conservationists...) > I'm not suggesting a cataclysmic end to this situation, but there is >no doubt that the hugely wasteful techological lifestyle that we lead in the >West has to be moderated. No doubt :-) many people felt the same way during the last industrial revolution, but given the all of the sweeping technological advances likely in the _next_ industrial revolution, your statement is highly doubtful at the very least. More efficient technology will be developed, so in that sense, the proportion of wasted energy/resources will be likely to be reduced -- in the sense that more production will be possible with a small amount of energy/raw materials. But if you are making an argument for a reduction in the standard of living, I think this argument is both misguided and doomed to failure. I would echo the previous recommendations that anyone interested in informed technological speculation (current, near future, and far future) should read Eric Drexler's "The Engines of Creation" (nanotechnology) and Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" (robotics). In addition, I would also recommend Stewart Brand's "The Media Lab" (telecommunications/graphics/human-computer interaction) and Grant Fjermedal's "The Tommorow Makers" (robotics/AI). Both the level of technology and the standard of living are likely to increase drastically in the near future -- continuing and accelerating the current levels of progress. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (04/13/90)
In article <22433@cs.yale.edu>, news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) writes: > Hogwash. Point 1: I can see little chance that the West will voluntarily > lower its standard of living in order to save the third world or the planet. > People just aren't that non-self-interested. I think they will be when it begins to threaten THEIR survival. Ecological problems don't stop at the border and these problems will be exacerbated unless living standards are raised in the third world. Witness the Brazilian rain forests. Those people want what we have and they will destroy one big mutha of an oxygen factory to get it (plus pay off debt which is pretty much the same thing). Do you breathe oxygen? > Point 2: even if the West did > do such a thing, we would still be in deep trouble, planetarily, from such > things as the destruction of the rain forest and the global use of petroluem > fuels feeding the greenhouse effect. This is just one big excuse to maintain current levels of western consumption (and quite frankly, ecomomic oppression). It might look bleak, but neither you or anybody knows that it's impossible to turn around. Modelling shows us (if anything) just how little we understand about the dynamic processes of the planet. I don't think the sacrifices (and many of them aren't sacrifices) required are so steep that they aren't worth trying. Besides this, there is the moral question: even if it's hopeless do I have to unnecesarily exacerbate it? > > The only chance I think we have is to create a technology that DOESN'T waste > resources or pollute; and I've mentioned my references (_Engines_of_Creation_ > in previous articles. > I'd need to know about this before I could comment.
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (04/13/90)
In article <9004121351.AA08723@lti2.lti.uucp>, reg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) writes: > > Absolutely true. However, one has to question to what extent all of > > these benefit us. e.g. our "better food" and more comfort have led to a > > lifestyle that is distinctly unhealthy- witness the prominence of heart > > disease and stress symptoms that are incurred in earning these things. > > The average life expectency during the time of the Roman Emperors was ~40 yrs. > Today it's ~75 yrs. Yet our lifestyle is distinctly unhealthy. Go figure. > > - reg > --- > Rick Genter reg%lti.uucp@bu.edu > Language Technology, Inc. Looks like I gotta say it again. We're effectively immune from measles, cholera smallpox etc- the major killers of people in the Roman (and almost any other era). Despite that, I contend that our lifestyle actually counteracts those advantages. In addition, our infant mortality rates have been dramatically reduced by sanitation etc. Your Roman mean would have been based on these very high numbers of infant deaths. I think there is every chance we would live even longer but for the kind of lifestyle that many of pursue. 'Nuff said?
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (04/13/90)
In article <1990Apr12.203832.17512@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > In article <1472@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: > > Furthermore, there is no doubt that the resources that support these > >things are taken from the third world at ripoff prices. > > "Ripoff prices" like those that made Kuwait one of the richest nations > in the world during the 70s? (If any third worlders can blame any > Westerners for their economic condition, it should be the Arabs > blaming the conservationists...) OPEC is one of the few nonwestern cartels to succeed, although I believe they haven't been doing all that well lately due to a number of factors. There have been other attempts by 3rd world countries to develop cartels but threats to cut off aid (food, military etc) or economic sanctions have often prevented it. > > > I'm not suggesting a cataclysmic end to this situation, but there is > >no doubt that the hugely wasteful techological lifestyle that we lead in the > >West has to be moderated. > > No doubt :-) many people felt the same way during the last industrial > revolution, but given the all of the sweeping technological advances > likely in the _next_ industrial revolution, your statement is highly > doubtful at the very least. No doubt I will have to change my usage of no doubt :-) None of my reading of the literature of the industrial revolution (Hardy, Dickens?) shows that people were concerned about levels of consumption or waste. I'm happy to be corrected though. > More efficient technology will be developed, so in that sense, the > proportion of wasted energy/resources will be likely to be reduced -- > in the sense that more production will be possible with a small amount > of energy/raw materials. Sure, processes will become more efficient, nevertheless the planet is finite (shades of Malthus!). In addition, this will be of little benefit if the present imbalance in the sharing of resources remains. i.e. who will benefit from such increases in productivity/efficiency? I'm sure since say WWII, we've seen massive improvments in efficiency, yet the essential difficulties of the third world remain. We assume that these efficiencies will filter through to third world. But s far as I can see, the don't (much). >But if you are making an argument for a > reduction in the standard of living, I think this argument is both > misguided and doomed to failure. Depend how you define standard of living. Clean air and water, food, security, a sense of community, hope for one's children- can all define a standard of living. I'd rather have these than a new car if it came to a choice. > > I would echo the previous recommendations that anyone interested in > informed technological speculation (current, near future, and far > future) should read Eric Drexler's "The Engines of Creation" > (nanotechnology) and Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" (robotics). In > addition, I would also recommend Stewart Brand's "The Media Lab" > (telecommunications/graphics/human-computer interaction) and Grant > Fjermedal's "The Tommorow Makers" (robotics/AI). > > Both the level of technology and the standard of living are likely to > increase drastically in the near future -- continuing and accelerating > the current levels of progress. I haven't read your refs, so I can't comment on that. Regarding your last para, no doubt our standard of living will improve (for a time- before the global env problems impact), but the point is that it will be our standard of living. Primarily though, at least in reference to the third world, I think we should understand that their problems aren't technological. They come from a political and economic base. Giving them a gene spliced variety won't help if the money goes to buy arms or pay off foriegn debt or props up (say) a dictatorship that just happens to be friendly with one of the superpowers (in return for a base or two). The problems need to be addressed at that level, not (only) in terms of technology.
news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) (04/13/90)
In article <1477@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: >In article <22433@cs.yale.edu>, news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) writes: >> Hogwash. Point 1: I can see little chance that the West will voluntarily >> lower its standard of living in order to save the third world or the planet. >> People just aren't that non-self-interested. > >I think they will be when it begins to threaten THEIR survival. Ecological >problems don't stop at the border and these problems will be exacerbated >unless living standards are raised in the third world. Witness the Brazilian >rain forests. Those people want what we have and they will destroy one big >mutha of an oxygen factory to get it (plus pay off debt which is pretty much >the same thing). Do you breathe oxygen? The problem I see with this is that the Brazil thing ALREADY THREATENS our survival! There are some projections I've heard about (sorry, I don't have references, so ignore this if you want) that say that the greenhouse effect is already out of control, even if we were to slash CO2 emissions and stop rainforest devastation NOW. When you say that "these people want what we have," are you suggesting that if we gave up what we have (i.e. lowered our standard of living) they would decide to be happy with what they have? And yes, of course I breathe oxygen, that's why I'm so WORRIED! >> Point 2: even if the West did >> do such a thing, we would still be in deep trouble, planetarily, from such >> things as the destruction of the rain forest and the global use of petroluem >> fuels feeding the greenhouse effect. > >This is just one big excuse to maintain current levels of western consumption >(and quite frankly, ecomomic oppression). It might look bleak, but neither >you or anybody knows that it's impossible to turn around. Modelling shows >us (if anything) just how little we understand about the dynamic processes >of the planet. I don't think the sacrifices (and many of them aren't sacrifices) >required are so steep that they aren't worth trying. Besides this, there is the >moral question: even if it's hopeless do I have to unnecesarily exacerbate it? This is why I'm so depressed that I will have to buy a car next year. I'm moving to California, and by all reports I _need_ internal-combustion tech- nology, lousy and stinky though it is, to survive out there. But I'm sure as hell gonna commute by bike if I possibly can.... I think the sacrifices are worth trying too. But I don't think enough people think that. I wish there would be another energy crisis... on top of Earth Day, it might have a profound effect. (And Earth Day is a big step in the right direction; now if only g*ddamn George Bush would take his head out of his *ss and enact some truly progressive legislation to go with it, unlike his travesty of an air emissions law! We'd be much better off.) But again, even if we in the West _did_ make these sacrifices, it's no guar- antee that Brazil &c. would therefore decide to be happy with what they've got. They might well reason, "Great! Now it's _our_ turn to live high on the hog and screw up the planet!" I don't want this to sound like I'm saying that there's nothing we can do and therefore nothing we should do. There are plenty of things we can, should, and must do. I'm simply stating my belief that we haven't got the gumption to almost totally abandon our lousy-tech- nology-based lifestyle, being the selfish humans we are. Those of us who do, must; and we must try to convince others. But we must _also_ work towards a technology that _won't_ have the problems we've stuck ourselves with today. >I'd need to know about this before I could comment. PLEASE, check it out! And if you don't think it's a reasonable thesis, PLEASE ATTACK IT VIGOROUSLY! There is an entire newsgroup, sci.nanotech, devoted to nanotechnology-related issues ("nanotechnology" is the technology which K. Eric Drexler discusses in his book _Engines_of_Creation_, which is the topic at hand). I have seen disappointingly few negative postings in that group; almost everyone there has swallowed Drexler hook, line, and sinker. I have too. But I wish people with more skepticism than me would blow holes in the whole thing; if it's _not_ all reasonable and/or probable, we should realize that now, and not waste any more effort on it all.... Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a jellinghaus-robert@CS.Yale.EDU | bad decision being made out of sheer ignor- ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | ance, pause, and think of hypertext." {everyone}!decvax!yale!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) (04/14/90)
In article <1481@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: >In article <1990Apr12.203832.17512@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >> More efficient technology will be developed, so in that sense, the >> proportion of wasted energy/resources will be likely to be reduced -- >> in the sense that more production will be possible with a small amount >> of energy/raw materials. > >Sure, processes will become more efficient, nevertheless the planet is finite >(shades of Malthus!). This is true. No technology, no matter how advanced, can avoid the problems of exponential population increase, leading to ultimate overpopulation. But there are some brighter possibilities in such a future: Our technology will be nonpolluting, so no matter how many of us there are, there will be no oil spills, CO2 emissions, toxic wastes, or dead beached dolphins. We'll be able to generate energy without shredding ecosystems. The _only_ ecological damage we'll do will be the damage we do merely by being on this planet and taking up space; byproducts of our technology, which are what are causing almost all our current problems, will cease to mess things up. Space travel will become much more cheap and convenient, opening up new potential resource pools and places we can colonize. One asteroid can provide as much steel as has EVER BEEN USED since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.... Lifespan will increase, as will standard of living; and both factors will tend to decrease reproduction rates. Essentially, if we're lucky and succeed in developing this technology before we kill ourselves (by nukes or ecodeath), our one remaining problem will be controlling our reproduction well enough to avoid crowding all other life out of the universe. And that's a fairly massive reduction in problems! >In addition, this will be of little benefit if the present imbalance in the >sharing of resources remains. i.e. who will benefit from such increases in >productivity/efficiency? I'm sure since say WWII, we've seen massive >improvments in efficiency, yet the essential difficulties of the third world >remain. We assume that these efficiencies will filter through to third world. >But s far as I can see, the don't (much). Also true. But our current technology requires massive resource rape before things start to roll; why else is Brazil slashing their forests? They're just doing what we did, back before we understood what a bad idea it is. Our current technology also requires lots of money to implement. Neither requirement will be a factor in the future technologies I'm hypothesizing. >>But if you are making an argument for a >> reduction in the standard of living, I think this argument is both >> misguided and doomed to failure. > >Depend how you define standard of living. Clean air and water, food, >security, a sense of community, hope for one's children- can all define >a standard of living. I'd rather have these than a new car if it came to >a choice. True. _You_ would. Most people, though, would rather have both; and if it comes down to a car and air that's a _little_ dirtier, they'll take the car. The only problem is that when a lot of people take the car, the air winds up being a _lot_ dirtier. Whose fault is it? You can't point fingers at people; after all, each car does only a little damage... and that's why arguments based on standard-of-living are so hard to use effectively to change people's thinking. The real thing that's at fault is the _car_!! I've heard that GM has an electric car in production (120 mile range; top spd. 60 mph); I hope it gets cheap.... (Of course, some of us--you and me included--_do_ realize that we are also at fault, and therefore moderate our car use. But there are far too many people who don't see things our way to make me sanguine about solving the problem by changing people's lifestyles en masse.) >> Both the level of technology and the standard of living are likely to >> increase drastically in the near future -- continuing and accelerating >> the current levels of progress. > >I haven't read your refs, so I can't comment on that. Please read and then comment! >Regarding your last para, no doubt our standard of living will improve >(for a time- before the global env problems impact), but the point is >that it will be our standard of living. Huh? >Primarily though, at least in reference to the third world, I think we >should understand that their problems aren't technological. They come >from a political and economic base. Giving them a gene spliced variety >won't help if the money goes to buy arms or pay off foriegn debt or props >up (say) a dictatorship that just happens to be friendly with one of the >superpowers (in return for a base or two). The problems need to be addressed >at that level, not (only) in terms of technology. Umm, this is true in that giving money and resources to a government with the intention that they will pass them on to their people doesn't tend to work to well when the government is corrupt, as you seem to be saying is the case. But it is also definitely true that third world economies are very, very depressed; and for them to take advantage of our current technology requires lots of stuff that future technologies won't demand. The problems need to be addressed at many levels; but the technological level holds out the (long-range) hope for a really lasting, worldwide solution, which seems more problematic with the other solutions which have been suggested. Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a jellinghaus-robert@CS.Yale.EDU | bad decision being made out of sheer ignor- ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | ance, pause, and think of hypertext." {everyone}!decvax!yale!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (04/14/90)
In article <22574@cs.yale.edu>, Rob Jellinghaus writes: > No technology, no matter how advanced, can avoid the problems of > exponential population increase, leading to ultimate overpopulation. Well, space travel has always been my personal favorite, since even if it does not avoid the problem completely, it at least increases the solution space by a lot. It's only problem (so far) is the huge amount of energy you need to climb out of the gravity well, even only as far as low Earth orbit. Don't get me wrong--I think that overpopulation is a real danger, and that current global attitudes about it are almost suicidal. I just would like to think that we aren't restricted to Gaia, beautiful as she is. > But there are far too many people who don't see things our way to make me > sanguine about solving the problem by changing people's lifestyles en > masse.) This, I think, is the central factor in the crisis. The first step in solving a problem is accepting that it exists, and far too many people either (a) don't admit that human civilization is in trouble (thanks in particular to post-renaissance Western European ideas about "progress"), or (b) that it matters. Remember James Watt? He didn't *care* about the environment, because in his world-view, the Earth wasn't going to be around much longer anyway. I find this scary. Nanotechnology holds a lot of promise. So does telecommunications technology, which is only just starting to change people's patterns of behavior in this country (I think the inventor of celluar radio deserves to be rich for life, for example). However, all of the technology in the world, no matter how cheap and clean, will have little effect until and unless it fires the imagination of the general public, and that doesn't always work the way anyone expects. Imagine, if you will, a charismatic televangelist deciding that nanomachines are a tool of Satan? It'll make book-burning and protests against recombinant DNA experimentation look like a summer picnic... -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation -- "Y'know, you can't have, like, a light, without a dark to stick it in... You know what I'm sayin'?" --Arlo Guthrie
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (04/14/90)
In article <22568@cs.yale.edu>, news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) writes: > In article <1477@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: > ><<Idealistic stuff by me about the west controlling consumption as it confronts its consequences.....>> > > The problem I see with this is that the Brazil thing ALREADY THREATENS our > survival! There are some projections I've heard about (sorry, I don't have > references, so ignore this if you want) that say that the greenhouse effect > is already out of control, even if we were to slash CO2 emissions and stop > rainforest devastation NOW. To be honest, I don't think we really have a handle on the greenhouse effect at all. As Dave Suzuki said in a recent TV "seminar" out here- modelling really shows us that we don't have much grasp of the dynamics of the atmosphere at all- it's very complex and we don't understand (or even know about) allof the processes. >When you say that "these people want what we > have," are you suggesting that if we gave up what we have (i.e. lowered our > standard of living) they would decide to be happy with what they have? And > yes, of course I breathe oxygen, that's why I'm so WORRIED! Me too :-). The idealist in me says that we all survive together or we all collapse together. Was a time when you could have an earthquake in china that would kill 20 million and it would get a couple of lines in the major dailies. I think we are developing something of a global consciosness (at least I hope so)- witness band aid etc. (Please...no violins) > >I don't think the sacrifices (and many of them aren't sacrifices) > >required are so steep that they aren't worth trying. Besides this, there > >is the > >moral question: even if it's hopeless do I have to unnecesarily > >exacerbate it? > > This is why I'm so depressed that I will have to buy a car next year. I'm > moving to California, and by all reports I _need_ internal-combustion tech- > nology, lousy and stinky though it is, to survive out there. But I'm sure > as hell gonna commute by bike if I possibly can.... I don't know why we tend to see these things in absolute terms. I don't think we all have to instantly convert to a completely green lifestyle- whatever that is. None of us are saints and the reality is that we won't. I think that some concessions from everyone is a great start. Your situation demands a car. OK. Cut down on plastic. THe system as it stands makes some things impossible for some of us. > > I think the sacrifices are worth trying too. But I don't think enough people > think that. I wish there would be another energy crisis... on top of Earth > Day, it might have a profound effect. (And Earth Day is a big step in the > right direction; now if only g*ddamn George Bush would take his head out of > his *ss and enact some truly progressive legislation to go with it, unlike > his travesty of an air emissions law! We'd be much better off.) I'm an outsider, but Bush seems a quantum leap better than Ronald Ray gun. Two great defences if you ever find yourself in danger of prosecution: 1. I don't remember 2. I am not a crook! > > But again, even if we in the West _did_ make these sacrifices, it's no guar- > antee that Brazil &c. would therefore decide to be happy with what they've > got. You could be right. On the other hand, we gave them a taste for what we have. Maybe that can be reversed. Sure beats watching the rainforests come down 'cos that is real. >They might well reason, "Great! Now it's _our_ turn to live high on > the hog and screw up the planet!" I don't want this to sound like I'm saying > that there's nothing we can do and therefore nothing we should do. There are > plenty of things we can, should, and must do. I'm simply stating my belief > that we haven't got the gumption to almost totally abandon our lousy-tech- > nology-based lifestyle, being the selfish humans we are. Part of it the value system that pumps out of the TV. Illich called it "relative poverty". i.e. even though I have a good quality of life, the TV and other media outlets convince that I'm really quite poor (and, hence it seems, unhappy) because I don't have a porsche, pool, villa .... When I get these then I can be truly happy. Of course they are manufactured needs- a porsche is capable of several hundred (?) km/hr, yet it will mostly putter along at 60 km/hr- 120 say. Who needs it? What need does it really fulfill. If we could eliminate these kinds of values we'd be well on the way. > Those of us who > do, must; and we must try to convince others. But we must _also_ work towards > a technology that _won't_ have the problems we've stuck ourselves with today. > > >I'd need to know about this before I could comment. > > PLEASE, check it out! And if you don't think it's a reasonable thesis, PLEASE > ATTACK IT VIGOROUSLY! There is an entire newsgroup, sci.nanotech, devoted to > nanotechnology-related issues ("nanotechnology" is the technology which K. > Eric Drexler discusses in his book _Engines_of_Creation_, which is the topic > at hand). I have seen disappointingly few negative postings in that group; > almost everyone there has swallowed Drexler hook, line, and sinker. I have > too. But I wish people with more skepticism than me would blow holes in the > whole thing; if it's _not_ all reasonable and/or probable, we should realize > that now, and not waste any more effort on it all.... > I've read bits of that newsgroup. I wouldn't like to provide my uncensored comments on the concept(s) mostly because I'm sure it would be labelled as sheer luddism. It would take me days to wade through the deluge and construct appropriate replies. My more moderate views would be : 1. The concept is fascinating, but I think it lacks (remember I haven't read the book) an appreciation of what complexity really means. Sure we could build small engines to repair dying cells that are afflicted in simple ways (just as we do fairly simple manipulations of DNA), but I think we need a better appreciation of the level of complexity we are up against. That's why the genome is being mapped and I'm sure that when it's done a lot of people are going to stand back and say holy f.... The sheer complexity of the thing will throw a whole new light (i think) on what we can do in terms of dna and what we can't. I'm not saying that in principle it can't be done, but I don't think we have grasped the enormity of the complexity involved in doing complex manipulations of either dna or of intervening at the molegular or atomic level to build things that modify (say) the functioning of something as complex as the human body or the mind. To come back to earth- we can't even engineer a system of sufficient complexity to reliably take us into space! Many thought that we understood the complexities involved in engineering SDI. The gap between what we think we can build or manipulate and what we actually can is pretty big. 2. I don;t think that nanotechnology (or any other technology) will solve the problems discussed above. They are political problems mainly. That's how they should be tackled. I'll say more if encouraged, but for now I think I'll just run and hide :-) Cheers.
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (04/14/90)
In article <22574@cs.yale.edu>, news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) writes: > This is true. No technology, no matter how advanced, can avoid the problems > of exponential population increase, leading to ultimate overpopulation. But > there are some brighter possibilities in such a future: > > Our technology will be nonpolluting, so no matter how many of us there are, > there will be no oil spills, CO2 emissions, toxic wastes, or dead beached > dolphins. We'll be able to generate energy without shredding ecosystems. > The _only_ ecological damage we'll do will be the damage we do merely by > being on this planet and taking up space; byproducts of our technology, which > are what are causing almost all our current problems, will cease to mess > things up. Yes, but taking up (more and more) space drags a lot of baggage with it: animals we eat/use "need" cleared land, they fill the atmosphere with methane (farts!), we'll use more energy and generate more heat that needs to be dissipated, we'll place greater pressure on food supplies (fisheries etc). The problem is multifaceted, and includes population growth (which historically and paradoxically only declines when living standards improve. children are the only resource that poor people have control of), maldistribution of resources (the underlying basis of which is greed) and high energy technologies. Low energy technolgies don't give us the power and convenience we want, but they also (i think) don't provide us with Exxon Valdez, Bhopal, Chernobyl etc. Who knows, maybe the technology you are advocating is of this kind. > Space travel will become much more cheap and convenient, opening up new > potential resource pools and places we can colonize. One asteroid can provide > as much steel as has EVER BEEN USED since the beginning of the Industrial > Revolution.... Well, I'm skeptical about the prospects of colonization. Sure technology is increasing at a rapid rate, but we don't even have the capacity to reliably launch 5-7 people into space on the shuttle. A while ago the US was getting panicky about its capacity to launch satellites at all. Shifting millions seems a little doubtful to me. > Lifespan will increase, as will standard of living; and both factors will > tend to decrease reproduction rates. Yes. If the standard of living of the overpopulating countries can be raised. > > Essentially, if we're lucky and succeed in developing this technology before > we kill ourselves (by nukes or ecodeath), our one remaining problem will be > controlling our reproduction well enough to avoid crowding all other life > out of the universe. Seeing as the size of the universe is pretty big, I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it :-) > Also true. But our current technology requires massive resource rape before > things start to roll; why else is Brazil slashing their forests? They're > just doing what we did, back before we understood what a bad idea it is. > Our current technology also requires lots of money to implement. Neither > requirement will be a factor in the future technologies I'm hypothesizing. You could be right, but I think the time factor will diminsish its possibilities > Most people, though, would rather have both; and if > it comes down to a car and air that's a _little_ dirtier, they'll take the > car. The only problem is that when a lot of people take the car, the air > winds up being a _lot_ dirtier. Whose fault is it? I believe that this is called the tragedy of the commons. People make rational decicions for them (like adding one more cow to the common land) that end up being collective irrationalities. The benefits go to the individual and the costs (erosion etc) are spread amongst everyone. We need a legislative menas of controlling commons (air, fisheries, water). Some commons are protected (banks!). Why not the world's air? > >> Both the level of technology and the standard of living are likely to > >> increase drastically in the near future -- continuing and accelerating > >> the current levels of progress. Different people define progress differently. Sure, progress has saved from infectious disease, but it might have exposed me to greater levels of carcinogens. I donlt think that we have to accept all technology/"progress" or have none of it. I think we can choose. > Umm, this is true in that giving money and resources to a government with > the intention that they will pass them on to their people doesn't tend to > work to well when the government is corrupt, as you seem to be saying is the > case. But it is also definitely true that third world economies are very, > very depressed; and for them to take advantage of our current technology > requires lots of stuff that future technologies won't demand. The problems > need to be addressed at many levels; but the technological level holds out > the (long-range) hope for a really lasting, worldwide solution, which seems > more problematic with the other solutions which have been suggested. Yes, but it isn't just corrupt govt.s, dictatorships etc. Much of our efforts to bootstrap the 3rd world technologically have had awful consequences: somebody gets the capital to buy supercrops, fertilizers, pesticides and gets bumper crops, buys out the surrounding small landholders (who can't compete anyway) and they move to the megacity where x million others eke out a squalid existence with no prospect of employment. Are we responsible for that? Well, agribiz, the DDT sellers etc certainly are. Should we have left them in their state? Why not? We could have given the major benefits of our technology- immunization, sanitary practices and say antibiotics. Infant mortaility would decline and if people had control of their land (even with primitive, inefficient varieties and practices) they could have adjusted their fertility in line with life expectancy. As it is, we've given them greater life expectancy anyway, andtheir only hope is to produce enough children to (hopefully) drag them out of their economic predicament. Maybe it's my misguided values, but I believe that if people have a reasonable life expectancy and profess that they are happy (despite working hard) then we should let them get on with their lives. Unfortunately, they've always represented potential markets. Guess where the cigarette companies will target if they continue to get a hard time in the west?