From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<1992Dec11.182521.19366@u.washington.edu>
	<JOSHUA.92Dec11143746@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
	<1992Dec12.002631.8867@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:47:46 GMT


In article <1992Dec12.002631.8867@u.washington.edu> 
grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes:

>   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.  [john states the problem of diminishing
>   >>   resources and expectations].

>   >[I point out (first) the probability of exploitation of extraterrestrial
>   >resources and (second) the possibilities of new technologies (specific-
>   >ly nanotechnology and generation of electricity through nuclear fusion).

john answers my second point first:

>   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.  

why not? what was the invention of agriculture? or the invention of industry?
the development of agricultiure, in particular, happened shortly after the
time that the dominant technology (big game hunting) had burnt itself out
('we are killing too many mammoths; when they are all dead we will not be 
able to sustain the current population; we are all going to die').

>							   The first one I
>   know of was "clean, cheap" nuclear power.  Do you recall the slogan,
>   "power too cheap to meter"?

in point of fact (I know I am getting into religious territory here, and I
promise not to sustain the argument (at least on this newsgroup) beyond
today), generation of power by nuclear fission is cleaner than generation
of same using fossil fuels. also the human toll is much lower (how many
people die in coal mines every year?). and it probably would be cheaper
if it were possible to set up nuclear power plants without having tree
huggers whining at their legislators and parading outside your office 
frothing at the mouth and howling for blood at the slightest sign of
a new power plant.

>   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...

yes, well, perhaps the first one would. but the second? the tenth? the
hundredth?

>   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.

well, you should. nanotechnology (working with materials on a molecular
level) would be a revolution much greater than the introduction of
agriculture. it is also much closer than you might think (electric motors
smaller than the diameter of a human hair have been built, for instance).

>   (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.)

and the japanese? the europeans? the chinese? the indians? I didn't say it
would necessarily be an american thing (or a russian, though if russia pulls
out of the current morass, I think large scale russian exploitation of space
is very likely).

josh



Newsgroups: alt.magick