Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!gwydir!gara!pmorriso From: pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Future Work Message-ID: <1485@gara.une.oz.au> Date: 14 Apr 90 12:45:46 GMT References: <9004101958.AA23998@stdc.jhuapl.edu> <1472@gara.une.oz.au> <22568@cs.yale.edu> Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia Lines: 138 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: > ><> > > 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.