From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:26:31 GMT

In article <JOSHUA.92Dec11143746@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec11.182521.19366@u.washington.edu> 
>grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes:
>
>>   The problem is this.  Our current civilization is dependent on a system of
>>   economic, agricultural and ecological practices which are unsustainable
>>   even over a timespan of decades.  Even at the present time, we could
>>   change to sustainable ways of living only at the cost of a massive,
>>   wrenching dislocation involving a radical drop in the standard of living
>>   across the entire developed world.  (Figures from one source I've read
>>   recently suggest that we'd have to accept the standard of living of 
>>   Brazil.)
>
>statements of this kind usually only take into account resources available
>on this planet; with the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources there
>is more than enough for everyone on the planet to have a high standard of
>living. if for whatever reason, we do not exploit extraterrestrial resources,
>I will admit things will probably get sort of grim, but I really don't think
>that is too likely (in other words, over the next 50 years or so, I fully
>expect systematic exploitation of off-planet resources to get off the ground).
>these club-of-rome, rifkinesque sayings of doom also fail to take into account
>the development of new technologies (like nanotechnology or fusion power)
>which are also more than likely in the near future.
>
Ah, technological band-aids.  I probably should have addressed this point 
up front some time ago.  Since about the 1950's, when people first started
noticing the disastrous long-term consequences of what were then emerging 
trends, there's been a spate of what I suppose could be caled "techno-
optimism" -- claims that some technology, or combination of same, would
prevent the otherwise inevitable overshoot and crash.  The first one I
know of was "clean, cheap" nuclear power.  Do you recall the slogan,
"power too cheap to meter"?

We've seen the downside of that one pretty thoroughly.  Now it's fusion 
that's the rage.  We've been being promised fusion energy on a commercial
basis since the mid-1950's.  Check into some of the estimates being put
together by people outside of the fusion-research industry (and I'm
not referring to the ecological fringe), suggesting on pretty good
grounds that a commercial fusion reactor using developments of current
technology would produce only about as much power as a fission plant,
but cost roughly ten times as much to build...

I can't speak directly to nanotechnology; I haven't read up on it.  But
I remain highly skeptical of any claim that some technological gimmick
is going to pull our nuts out of the fire.  I wish one would...but in
the meantime, it might make sense to prepare some fallback plans in
case it doesn't happen.

(Large-scale exploitation of extraterrestrial resources is another 
matter entirely; there are enormous resources available offworld, and
that could definitely do the trick, in the same way that the discovery
and exploitation of the resources of the Americas pulled Europe out
of its backwater status and stopped a spiral of famine, depopulation
and disease that had been going on since about 1300.  Unfortunately,
the space program in the US and CIS both is creeping ahead at a snail's
pace, hamstrung by budget cuts and the pork-barreling that has made
the Space Station Freedom project such an embarrasment.  (Wasn't it
supposed to be functioning by this year?)  If we don't get offworld in
a big way very soon indeed, these resources may not come on line soon
enough to help -- and I'm not at all sure we have fifty years to spare.)

>add into this the decimation of the populace likely to occur in many of the
>worst case nations, for various reasons, and you end up with a situation where
>there are fewer have-nots and more to go around.
>
>>   So here we are.  A small minority of us, maybe, are wiling to accept
>>   the sacrifices needed to ensure a future to this civilization. We don't
>>   have the power to get the majority, who aren't, to follow suit.  
>
>and I, for one, am very glad that you don't. just how, pray tell, would you
>'get the majority ... to follow suit', were you able to? confiscatory taxation?
>set up some camps? just take them out and shoot them? the possibilities are
>endless.

I'm glad I don't either.  What I had in mind, as it happens, was education
-- yeah, yeah, I know, typical liberal idiocy.  Doesn't Crowley mention
somewhere that he always had trouble with the fact that he couldn't change
a lifetime of bad habits with a few friendly words of explanation?

Seriously, though, one of the real (and deadly) temptations of the Path
is the desire to use force (or politics, which is just another name for
the same thing) to impose your understandings on the rest of the world.
I've read enough eco-fascist literature to know that there are quite a
few people who would gladly take the steps you mention in defense of the
Earth...

It never works.  With luck, it's never a temptation I'll have to face.
>
>josh

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu


Newsgroups: alt.magick