Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!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: <22574@cs.yale.edu> Date: 13 Apr 90 17:27:18 GMT References: <9004101958.AA23998@stdc.jhuapl.edu> <1472@gara.une.oz.au> <1990Apr12.203832.17512@cs.rochester.edu> <1481@gara.une.oz.au> Reply-To: jellinghaus-robert@yale.UUCP Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 Lines: 107 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_