From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Carrying Capacity and Sanity
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:56:19 GMT

>This is not a scientific or pragmatic question -- it is a moral one. At least
>to some of us -- and I think in fact to the vast majority of people -- this 
>path is reminiscent of the dreams of a Hitler. It is tinged with psychosis. 
>It might turn out that if we followed it, it would be a blessing if we were 
>to fail and become extinct. Does the universe really need an exponentiating 
>civilization of conquering power-worshippers who cheerfully wrecked their 
>own world to get warmed up? Is that a worthy thing for us to try to become? 
>
>			*	*	*	*
>
>The choice couldn't be more clear. One way says expand the human niche as
>far as we can and trust to the cleverness of technologists to figure out
>something whenever we get into a jam. The other way says shrink the human
>niche down to a coevolutionary stable state with the biosphere (at least
>on Earth) -- a state which is compatible with the maintenance of the Earth's
>biological diversity and ecological and evolutionary processes. That is the
>human niche. If it can someday be extended off the Earth without expanding 
>it *on* the Earth, fine. Maybe if we first demonstrate that we can after all
>live within the means of one biosphere without harming it we will acquire 
>the longevity as a species -- and the moral right -- to attempt projects on
>such an immense scale. [And probably the first step towards learning how
>to make new biospheres is restoring the one we have now.]

Although Alan uses his normal polemic approach in referring to Hitler,
I hope people can get past that and see the basic point.  A while back
I took a question from John McCarthy about technical limits to
pollution sinks and converted it to one about our choice of leaving
our mess for others to solve.  Such moral questions sometimes make
scientists and engineers uneasy because scientific and technological
advance are value-free.  Their uses, however, are not.  For many
people, these issues are simply ones of personal responsibility for
our actions: as individuals, as societies, and as a species.  The
application of morality is tricky in a society of individuals.  The 
imposition of morality by a minority is coercive.  The abdication of
morality to the market could lead to a "market correction"  on a 
scale suggested by "Beyond the Limits", or barring that (for the
skeptics), it leads to large biospheric impacts, unless you are as
optimistic about technology as John McCarthy (but we know he's the
gambling type :).  The application of morality through consensual
agreement in society is the goal as I see it.  Examples of such
consensual morality abound and it is the goal of many of us to
promote such a consensus.  Alan describes the choices in stark terms.
Whether one wishes to acknowledge such a stark dichotomy or not, the
choice is still there to be made.  Or has our technology advanced to
such a degree that we now imitate our machines and our limitations
are defined only by our physical capabilities?

>
>------------
>Alan McGowen
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)