Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cs.yale.edu!news From: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Future Work Message-ID: <22568@cs.yale.edu> Date: 13 Apr 90 16:39:53 GMT References: <9004101958.AA23998@stdc.jhuapl.edu> <1472@gara.une.oz.au> <22433@cs.yale.edu> <1477@gara.une.oz.au> Reply-To: jellinghaus-robert@yale.UUCP Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 Lines: 74 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_