Extend the earth's life!
George W. Cherry
make sure this planet does too. Don't buy an SUV, truck,
sedan, or sports car, buy an ECO car. Toyota is coming
up with a dazzling one: the 2004 Liftback Prius with Hy-
brid technoloty. I'm going to get one and a vanity plate
that says "ECO". This is not spam. I just care as much
about the planet as I do about myself.
http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/look_ahead/index.html
George W. Cherry
Aubrey de Grey
George Cherry wrote:
> Hey, if you aim to live another century or two, you better
> make sure this planet does too.
It is worth noting that a variation on this point, less often heard, is
perhaps likely to make more difference in the long run:
If you *expect* to live another century or two, you probably *will*
act (at least somewhat) to make sure this planet does too.
The difference is perhaps better brought out by the converse wording:
If you want to make sure this planet lives another century or two,
your best bet is probably to make people alive today do so too.
I try to make a habit of pointing this out to environmentalists, and
especially to environmentalists who focus on overpopulation as a reason
to eschew life extension. My mileage varies...
Aubrey de Grey
George W. Cherry
"Aubrey de Grey" <ag...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b8c0oh$imr$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Wow, what a concept: my concern about the earth shall
go no further than my period of inhabiting it!
I'm fond of this planet irrespective of my continued so-
journ on it. My life form evolved on this earth and I
breathed its air and ate its plant life everyday of my
life. I've formed a relationship with it and its creatures,
which has enriched by life. I even like some of its man-
made artifacts (but a world of made is not a world of
born). But maybe I mistake your argument. Maybe
you're not saying what I think you're saying.
George
Tim Tyler
: George Cherry wrote:
:> Hey, if you aim to live another century or two, you better
:> make sure this planet does too.
: It is worth noting that a variation on this point, less often heard, is
: perhaps likely to make more difference in the long run:
: If you *expect* to live another century or two, you probably *will*
: act (at least somewhat) to make sure this planet does too.
I can't see it making much difference.
If you don't live a long time there's probably a chance that your
descendants might - the idea of preserving the earth for your
descendants seems to me to have about as much force as the idea
of preserving it for yourself.
Either way we face the problems of not being constructed with
long-term-planning in mind - through rarely before having had
any accurate way of forcasting.
Forgoing or conserving resources now for the sake of the future rarely
pays off anyway - someone else just grabs and exploits them instead.
Pollution and conservation face the tragedy of the commons - grabbing
resources and not cleaning up benefits you, with the cost being
shouldered by everyone else.
Matt Ridley suggests good solutions to this problem in "The Origins of
Virtue". Some depend on the resource being able to be sliced up.
That isn't so easy in the case of pollution - pollution naturally
diffuses. Others depend on accountability and monitoring. As such
they depend on a complete lack of anonymity and privacy.
What might work is a big, powerful world government - with long-term
resource management in mind.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1.org
Aubrey de Grey
George Cherry wrote:
> Wow, what a concept: my concern about the earth shall
> go no further than my period of inhabiting it!
>
> I'm fond of this planet irrespective of my continued so-
> journ on it. My life form evolved on this earth and I
> breathed its air and ate its plant life everyday of my
> life. I've formed a relationship with it and its creatures,
> which has enriched by life. I even like some of its man-
> made artifacts (but a world of made is not a world of
> born). But maybe I mistake your argument. Maybe
> you're not saying what I think you're saying.
I'm saying very nearly what you think I'm saying. I'm saying that
even though a healthy proportion of educated/thinking people think
as you (and me) about the long-term future of the planet, the same
cannot be said for the public at large. Really this is no more than
a generalisation of the reason there is such widespread apathy about
life extension research: scientists' perpetual refusal to discuss
timescales just reinforces the view that no serious breakthrough is
likely within the lifetime of anyone presently alive, and with that
mindset it is no surprise that the public don't agitate for such
research to be expedited.
Aubrey de Grey
Ed
I think this may fit in here: http://www.oilcrisis.com
Check this site out. See especially, in my opinion, Duncan's "The
Olduvai Theory of Industrial Civilization." Also, new balanced book,
"The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies," by
Richard Heinberg. According to these researchers, we've got maybe 25
years, then maybe massive dieoff. Not by global warming, not by
fisheries collapse, but oil depletion. Serious stuff, good
credentials. Life-extension under these conditions?!
--Ed
ag...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Aubrey de Grey) wrote in message news:<b8c0oh$imr$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
Doug Brooks
Doug Brooks
> What might work is a big, powerful world government
That really scares the crap out of me.
Tim Tyler
: Tim Tyler wrote:
:> What might work is a big, powerful world government
: That really scares the crap out of me.
;-)
We have an example of govermental human resource control - the
"one child policy" in China.
This began in the 1970s - and is estimated to have prevented 250 million
births since then.
I don't know if something similar will prove to be necessary - but I'm
pretty sure that without regulation the earth will be pretty full of
humans fairly shortly - and will be burning its resources rapidly.
"Later, Longer, Fewer" - Slogan of the initial population control program.
Steve Harris
"Ed" <erb...@cdsnet.net> wrote in message
news:d2f849d8.03042...@posting.google.com...
> Hi Aubrey and all:
>
> I think this may fit in here: http://www.oilcrisis.com
> Check this site out. See especially, in my opinion,
Duncan's "The
> Olduvai Theory of Industrial Civilization." Also, new
balanced book,
> "The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial
Societies," by
> Richard Heinberg. According to these researchers, we've
got maybe 25
> years, then maybe massive dieoff. Not by global warming,
not by
> fisheries collapse, but oil depletion. Serious stuff,
good
> credentials. Life-extension under these conditions?!
Except I read the same kinds of books 25 years ago
predicting we'd be out of oil NOW.
I know of no year in which newly-found oil, gas and coal
reserves having outpaced fossil fuels actually used that
year. They are all intra-convertible (expensive but not so
expensive as cause "massive die off). The first year that
fossil fuel use outpaces new fossil fuel reserves found,
I'll start to think that the future projections may be in a
place where they might be semi-realistic.
Of course, we must run out of fossil fuel eventually. But
the real time frame, at least 50 years from now, is more
than enough for us to have switched to other energy sources
unless we're complete nitwits. We could even do it in 30 if
we had to. If you put todays wind generators every candidate
place in the US, you could run the entire electrical power
system several times over, with remainder available for
making hydrogen. And that's just one small part of many many
options.
lad
>
> If you want to make sure this planet lives another century or two,
> your best bet is probably to make people alive today do so too.
>
> I try to make a habit of pointing this out to environmentalists, and
> especially to environmentalists who focus on overpopulation as a reason
> to eschew life extension. My mileage varies...
>
> Aubrey de Grey
I think you really nailed it Aubrey1
Now, there is always "Plan B" - adapt ourselves to breathing less O2,
drinking unclean water, ingesting and enjoying a few TCEs, etc. And
when you consider that Cataclysmic natural disasters, climate changes
and the occasional big meteor are inevitably on their way sometime, we
better have a way of adapting or escaping.
Carlos Antunes
>
> What might work is a big, powerful world government - with long-term
> resource management in mind.
>
It's been tried before and failed. It was called the USSR.
Carlos Antunes
>
> We have an example of govermental human resource control - the
> "one child policy" in China.
>
Oh, a totalitarian government. Do you really think a totalitarian government
gives a shit about the lives of individuals?
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HDyu5...@bath.ac.uk...
That would be relevant if *only* totalitarian governments were able
to control the extent of their human resources - but I don't believe
that is the case.
G EddieA95
>> What might work is a big, powerful world government
>
>That really scares the crap out of me
It shouldn't. Any chance of a viable world government went down in smoke on
September 11, 2001, for the next 2 generations at least.
Physically, what could a WG do to you, that terrorists (or society's reaction
to them) couldn't do anyway?
G EddieA95
>humans fairly shortly - and will be burning its resources rapidly.
>
Road apples. Populations are self-limiting in a closed system. They rise
because nations are not closed systems, but the human populations will
stabilize on its own.
If the final numbers mean you have to drive farther to see "unspoiled nature,"
that's less of a price than forced population control. You can't have that
without tyranny.
The Friendly Chimp Bubbles
>
>Hey, if you aim to live another century or two, you better
>make sure this planet does too. Don't buy an SUV, truck,
>sedan, or sports car, buy an ECO car.
>
Only human beings drive cars, George. Wouldn't it be far easier to simply go
out and kill many, many human beings?
We'd compost them, of course.
Tim Tyler
:>without regulation the earth will be pretty full of
I'm not sure you have grasped my point.
My concern is that "nature's population equilibrium" may be such that the
human race destroys the earth's resources before it has had a reasonable
chance to establish other outposts elsewhere - thus destroying itself.
I don't know if this is true - or if limiting resource consumption would
prove practical or help much - but it seems a possible scenario.
As to whether govermental control over reproduction requires
totalitarianism or tyrrany, I don't see why it should. It does
needs a sufficiently powerful state to be able to police things -
of course.
Maybe you think individuals would rebel - and vote in a party that gave
them their reproductive freedom - but I see no reason why that would
happen.
Provided everyone was equally restricted, everyone being allowed more kids
would not offer an advantage to particular individuals. If the government
made a convincing case for the fact that universal reproductive freedom
was likely to lead to ultimate obliteration, then I don't see why they
shouldn't get voted back in.
The government already taxes other resourse usage. They control petrol
usage through taxation. They control the use of alcohol through taxation.
Taxes on babies would just be more of the same.
G EddieA95
>human race destroys the earth's resources before it has had a reasonable
>chance to establish other outposts elsewhere - thus destroying itself.
Won't happen. Exhaustion of resources won't happen all at once. As resources
become scarcer, babies will be seen as less and less positive things to have,
and we will begin to see the top of the S-curve.
(You are aware, of course, that natural populations--not just human--follow an
S-curve, that ramps up then flattens out, not a rocketing curve that shoots up
into obliteration?? There are evidences that our world is already in the
second half of the curve. Around 1980, it was claimed that world pops. would
be from 7E9 to 1E10. Neither point was reached.)
>I don't know if this is true - or if limiting resource consumption would
>prove practical or help much - but it seems a possible scenario.
The market will achieve that. As non-renewable resources become more costly,
alternatives will be found. Ultimately, solar power will enable converting our
entropy to an energy stream. The Sun is limitless, from our perspective.
>tion requires
>totalitarianism or tyrrany, I don't see why it should. It does
>needs a sufficiently powerful state to be able to police things -
>of course.
Has to. What do you expect, posters urging couples not to mate??? To control a
bodily drive requires force.
It requires taking women to be sterilised against their will.
It requires removal of excss infants by infanticide.
Both are something only tyrannies can do reliably.
> If the government
>made a convincing case for the fact that universal reproductive freedom
>was likely to lead to ultimate obliteration,
Apocalyptic threats are older than the nonexistent "population crisis." They
don't frighten anyone beyond the radical fringe. And Westerners, in
particular, have an inbred distrust of government, while in the Muslim world
such controls are seen as an affront to God. Enforcing the controls against
either will require a gun in the face.
>control petrol
>usage through taxation. They control the use of alcohol through taxation.
>Taxes on babies would just be more of the same.
And taxes are enforced by a gun in the face. Don't kid yourself that such a
program will lead to anything other than a plague of infanticide, a gender
imbalance in the next generation, and a high potential for tyranny.
Tim
overpopulation may be useful. For instance Mexico and the Philippines
have laws against legal abortions, though quite a number actually take
place illegally with the resultant high mortality. Though abortion
itself isn't what I'd consider a desireable way to limit
overpopulation, birth control is frowned upon and discouraged by a
certain theological viewpoint in these nations. But also consider many
parents in third world countries simply have more children due to the
impact of high mortality of children in these countries and also
having a lot of children is viewed as a retirement plan i.e.,the
children support the parents in old age. Whereas in Western Europe the
population is actually on the decline.
Tim
George W. Cherry
"Doug Brooks" <do...@want.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3EAAC16B...@want.spam.com...
> Tim Tyler wrote:
> > What might work is a big, powerful world government
>
> That really scares the crap out of me.
Anarchists and libertarians scare the crap of me.
George
Tim Tyler
:>My concern is that "nature's population equilibrium" may be such that the
:>human race destroys the earth's resources before it has had a reasonable
:>chance to establish other outposts elsewhere - thus destroying itself.
: Won't happen. Exhaustion of resources won't happen all at once. As
: resources become scarcer, babies will be seen as less and less positive
: things to have, and we will begin to see the top of the S-curve.
So our descendants will decline and die out gradually?
What sort of consolation is that?
:>I don't know if this is true - or if limiting resource consumption would
:>prove practical or help much - but it seems a possible scenario.
: The market will achieve that. As non-renewable resources become more costly,
: alternatives will be found. Ultimately, solar power will enable
: converting our entropy to an energy stream. The Sun is limitless,
: from our perspective.
In practice, most of the energy we can extract from the Sun arises due to
the temperature gradient created by the spinning of the earth - and
neither the sun or the energy in the earth's spin are limitless resources.
Our planet is doomed. If we don't get off it in time we'll share its fate.
:>tion requires totalitarianism or tyrrany, I don't see why it should.
:>It does needs a sufficiently powerful state to be able to police
:>things - of course.
: Has to. What do you expect, posters urging couples not to mate???
: To control a bodily drive requires force.
Check the definitions of "totalitarian" and "tyrrany".
Governmental force is not the sole defining characteristic.
: It requires taking women to be sterilised against their will.
: It requires removal of excss infants by infanticide.
: Both are something only tyrannies can do reliably.
I'm afraid I can't take your comments seriously.
Carlos Antunes
>
> That would be relevant if *only* totalitarian governments were able
> to control the extent of their human resources - but I don't believe
> that is the case.
>
Only totalitarian governments are able to force people to only have a
certain amount of children. That seems a given to me.
Carlos Antunes
>
> My concern is that "nature's population equilibrium" may be such that the
> human race destroys the earth's resources before it has had a reasonable
> chance to establish other outposts elsewhere - thus destroying itself.
>
Nature has never been in equilibrium. Change has been the contant. What
makes you think there is one for population?
>
> As to whether govermental control over reproduction requires
> totalitarianism or tyrrany, I don't see why it should. It does
> needs a sufficiently powerful state to be able to police things -
> of course.
>
Ok, in practical terms, how do you prevent women from having, let's say,
more than one child?
>
> Taxes on babies would just be more of the same.
>
Oh, shit, that's what we really need. You need to pay the government for the
right to be alive.
Carlos Antunes
news:Z5Uqa.371903$OV.391253@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Anarchists and libertarians scare the crap of me.
>
I see. You prefer tyrants.
George W. Cherry
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:irWqa.18209$XE.8...@news1.east.cox.net...
Nope, I prefer a secular, humanistic democracy. When
you have the number of people we have on earth you
need some sort of government to pass and enforce laws
for the common good. For example, the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is such a law. Some
laws benefit us all. I think CAFE is one. I think the law
that cars have safety devices is another. I think the Clean
Air Act is another. It's impossible for well-motivated indi-
viduals to secure such benefits by individual actions. For
an example, take the Clean Air Act. Since the amount
of pollutants I or my company produce will not change
my environment very much and because it may be con-
venient for me and my company to pollute, I and my
company simply have no reason to limit our pollution.
This is called the "Tragedy of the Commons". Suppose
there is some common ground, a park or a pasture. As
a sheep owner, I am motivated to get as much value from
the pasture as possible; so I will pasture as many sheep
as I own there. If all us sheep owners do this, then soon
the pasture is nothing but dirt and mud, no good to any
of us. A law which limited us to one or a few sheep per
person would save the common for all of us.
That's not tyranny, Carlos. That's common sense. And
that's the kind of laws I favor--along, of course, with
laws that keep the peace and protect us from thieves
and murderers. The anarchist doesn't want any laws
at all and the libertarian says "I don't want any law that
prevents me from doing whatever I damn well please to
do".
For example, consider SARS. Several countries have
enforced a quarantine on people with SARS or pre-
vented people with SARS from getting on an airplane
to go wherever they wanted to. Do you think that's
tyrannical? A libertarian would deeply resent an im-
posed quarantine or travel restriction.
Take care, Carlos
George
G EddieA95
>have laws against legal abortions, though quite a number actually take
>place illegally with the resultant high mortality. Though abortion
>itself isn't what I'd consider a desireable way to limit
>overpopulation, birth control is frowned upon and discouraged
So because birth-control is discouraged, you expect abortion to be welcomed?
Don't hold your breath.
G EddieA95
>
>So our descendants will decline and die out gradually?
>What sort of consolation is that?
>
No, no, no.....the population will *level off* to a stable level, higher than
now, but well within the earth's carrying limit. It follows an S-curve, where
the lower limb of the curve increases very slowly (history before 1800), picks
up rapidly in the middle (1800 to now, with an inflection point somewhere in
the past) and an upper limb tails off slowly to a higher bound. It doesn't
crash back to zero.
>In practice, most of the energy we can extract from the Sun arises due to
>the temperature gradient created by the spinning of the earth - and
>neither the sun or the energy in the earth's spin are limitless resources.
The thermal gradient isn't the only way to tap the sun. Power stations in
space will not use earth's spin at all; and while these are now too expensive,
if human need increases sufficiently they will be built.
The sun is limitless from our perspective. Its output is far more than we can
ever use from earth; and it will outlive our race in its present form. We can
never "use up" the sun.
>Our planet is doomed. If we don't get off it in time we'll share its fate.
Possibly. And in the process of moving out, opur grandchilden will learn to
tap the sun for energy.
Carlos Antunes
>
> Nope, I prefer a secular, humanistic democracy.
>
As opposed to a Contitutional Republic where the rights of minorities are
respected?
>
> When you have the number of people we have on earth you
> need some sort of government to pass and enforce laws
> for the common good.
>
Please, define "common good." I understand the need for Governments to
protect individual rights. Once Governments go beyond that, what I see is
groups of people oppressing other groups of people.
>
> The anarchist doesn't want any laws
> at all and the libertarian says "I don't want any law that
> prevents me from doing whatever I damn well please to
> do".
>
The way you see libertarians, I don't see how they are different from
anarchists. The fact is, libertarians advocate strong Laws that protect
individual rights. In a Libertarian world, if a company is poluting and
causing people to get sick because of that, that company would be sued and
would have to pay reparations. I don't see any tragedy here.
>
> For example, consider SARS. Several countries have
> enforced a quarantine on people with SARS or pre-
> vented people with SARS from getting on an airplane
> to go wherever they wanted to. Do you think that's
> tyrannical?
>
No, those people are a threat to others. Others have the right to neutralize
the threat. This is the Libertarian way of thinking.
>
> A libertarian would deeply resent an im-
> posed quarantine or travel restriction.
>
I'm sorry, but you don't understand Libertarianism.
Carlos
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HDzxB...@bath.ac.uk...
:> Taxes on babies would just be more of the same.
: Oh, shit, that's what we really need. You need to pay the government for the
: right to be alive.
You pretty much need to do that today. Income tax, sales tax, land tax,
inheritance tax - and so on - tax well over 95% of the population.
If the government wants to decrease the number of humans that can be
supported, they can raise taxes and increase the cost of living.
Of course this would need to be done globally - or you're in danger of
having your population emigrate - but a "big world government" was the
topic of discussion - so emigration isn't an issue.
I don't know if a "birth tax" is the most effective means of controlling
population numbers - but it is what has already been tried - in China
for the past 25 years - and so we can see how well it works.
Tim Tyler
:>So our descendants will decline and die out gradually?
:>What sort of consolation is that?
: No, no, no.....the population will *level off* to a stable level, higher than
: now, but well within the earth's carrying limit. It follows an S-curve, where
: the lower limb of the curve increases very slowly (history before 1800), picks
: up rapidly in the middle (1800 to now, with an inflection point somewhere in
: the past) and an upper limb tails off slowly to a higher bound. It doesn't
: crash back to zero.
You are not modelling based on limited resources.
Hypothesising unbounded energy sources is all very well - but today
mankind cannot live off sunlight alone - and today we are burning
irreplacable earth resources at a rapid rate.
The idea that we can save ourselves from population crashes when the
natural resources we are currently living off have gone - via new energy
sources made possible by advanced technology - is a possibility. However
it is rather speculative whether or not this will happen in time -
or indeed at all.
: The sun is limitless from our perspective. Its output is far more than
: we can ever use from earth; and it will outlive our race in its present
: form.
That may not be saying much. ISTM that our race is currently in a state
of flux. For instance, many members are currently augmenting their
phenotypes with long-distance communications equipment, additional senses
and actuators, and supplemental electronic brains. Change is in the air.
:>Our planet is doomed. If we don't get off it in time we'll share its fate.
: Possibly. And in the process of moving out, opur grandchilden will learn to
: tap the sun for energy.
The jump to the stars seems like a fair sized one to me.
It's far from certain whether we'll make it.
I think good planning will be required. Letting the "cells" of the
human race do their own thing seems to me like a recipe for screwing up.
Good management may well be needed - and the total number of individuals
may well be the subject of regulation - as indeed it is managed very
directly today - in one of the most heavily populated regions of the
earth - containing about 23% of the world's inhabitants.
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HDzxB...@bath.ac.uk...
:> My concern is that "nature's population equilibrium" may be such that the
:> human race destroys the earth's resources before it has had a reasonable
:> chance to establish other outposts elsewhere - thus destroying itself.
: Nature has never been in equilibrium. Change has been the contant. What
: makes you think there is one for population?
It was Eddie's hypothesis that "the human populations will stabilize".
It /might/ happen for a while.
Certainly the human population growth rate is showing some signs of
levelling off after a long period of rather consistent rise.
...has a diagram showing the rate of growth against time.
Tim Tyler
:>Tim Tyler wrote:
[population management]
:>> What might work is a big, powerful world government
:>
:>That really scares the crap out of me
: It shouldn't. Any chance of a viable world government went down in smoke on
: September 11, 2001, for the next 2 generations at least.
It's not easy to see what the overall effect of that will be.
It seems to have had the effect of making America much more interested in
the affairs of the rest of the world.
Whether America's influence will be a stabilizing one (as they would
no doubt like) - or whether they just stir things up - remains to be seen.
G EddieA95
>population numbers - but it is what has already been tried - in China
>for the past 25 years -
In conjunction with forced sterilizations and infanticide.
Since only one country in the world has implemented population control in
modern times, and it has been a tyranny, I don't at all imagine that a system
having even vestiges of human liberty would or could implement it.
G EddieA95
>: the past) and an upper limb tails off slowly to a higher bound. It doesn't
>: crash back to zero.
>
>You are not modelling based on limited resources.
Au contraire, the limited carrying capacity is *why* the curve flattens out at
the top. If CC were unlimited, the curve would continue to rise.
>Hypothesising unbounded energy sources is all very well - but today
>mankind cannot live off sunlight alone - and today
The need is *not* "today" and not in the next generation. By the time it is
needed, the solar power will be there, because rising fossilfuel costs will
drive its development.
> new energy
>sources made possible by advanced technology - is a possibility. However
>it is rather speculative whether or not this will happen in time -
>or indeed at all.
Of course. If WW3 is triggered by the march to global tyranny, all bets are
off. ISTM that after such a conflict, population will cease to be a concern to
anyone.
>For instance, many members are currently augmenting their
>phenotypes with long-distance communications equipment, additional senses
>and actuators, and supplemental electronic brains. Change is in the air.
How many humans are walking around with "added senses and actuators?" And even
if this were true, does it use up *1E9* times more power than normal levels?
(The sun's output is 1E9 times greater than that intercepted by earth, and we
as human beings tap only a smaller portion of that.)
>The jump to the stars seems like a fair sized one to me.
>
>It's far from certain whether we'll make it.
Space colonies within this system will long precede star travel.
G EddieA95
>
>It's not easy to see what the overall effect of that will be.
It has shown that there is *no* way to unify Westerners with Islamists. There
are about 4E8 of the first, and potentially 1E9 led by the second, so no world
government is even possible. Relax.
>It seems to have had the effect of making America much more interested in
>the affairs of the rest of the world.
Are you in the UK? Relax. y'all are certain to share the catbird seat with
your former colonies. :)
Tim Tyler
:>I don't know if a "birth tax" is the most effective means of controlling
I don't think China is /quite/ that alone.
India has also got a population-control program - and it includes
sterilisation, fines for non-complaince - and has included forced
sterilisation - e.g.:
``At its worst, India’s policy included declaring a state of emergency
in 1976 and implementing forced sterilization in poor neighborhoods.''
- http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/Famplan.htm
I think governmental control of reproduction will be important -
but it /may/ be that it can be effected by financial means - i.e.
by denying individuals access to resources - as it is in most
places today.
However financial control can be a rather gross approach.
It typically affects other aspects of the individual - as well
as their reproductive potential - unless the tax is levied
specifically on child-related activities.
Alternatively, maybe much of the workforce will come to be
dominated by genetically-engineered sterile clones - who are
very good at their respective jobs.
In which case population control won't be such a problem ;-)
Carlos Antunes
>
> You pretty much need to do that today. Income tax, sales tax, land tax,
> inheritance tax - and so on - tax well over 95% of the population.
>
Which is an argument to end taxation, not to add another tax.
>
> If the government wants to decrease the number of humans that can be
> supported, they can raise taxes and increase the cost of living.
>
Governments exist to protect individual rights, not engineer society.
>
> I don't know if a "birth tax" is the most effective means of controlling
> population numbers - but it is what has already been tried - in China
> for the past 25 years - and so we can see how well it works.
>
I can't wait for a communist world government!
George W. Cherry
"Carlos Antunes" wrote:
> "George W. Cherry" wrote:
> > Nope, I prefer a secular, humanistic democracy.
> As opposed to a Contitutional Republic where the rights of minorities are
> respected?
Everyone is a minority of one. Therefore everyone
benefits from the common good of minority rights.
> > When you have the number of people we have on earth you
> > need some sort of government to pass and enforce laws
> > for the common good.
> Please, define "common good." I understand the need for Governments to
> protect individual rights. Once Governments go beyond that, what I see is
> groups of people oppressing other groups of people.
Governments should also secure common (that is,
universal) rights; for example, the rightss we all share to
breathe clean air, eat unadulterated food, take safe
and effective medicines, and enjoy peace and safety.
> > The anarchist doesn't want any laws
> > at all and the libertarian says "I don't want any law that
> > prevents me from doing whatever I damn well please to
> > do".
> The way you see libertarians, I don't see how they are different from
> anarchists. The fact is, libertarians advocate strong Laws that protect
> individual rights. In a Libertarian world, if a company is poluting and
> causing people to get sick because of that, that company would be sued and
> would have to pay reparations. I don't see any tragedy here.
If that's what you mean by libertarian, then why would
you object to the governments setting pollution stan-
dards for automobiles? The 2004 Toyota Prius with
Hybrid Synergy Drive will generate up to 89% fewer
smog-forming emissions. Such technology is availa-
ble; so why not refine the emission standards a wee
bit to encourage the use of such technology. Automo-
bile pollution is a chronic problem, not an acute one
like SARS. As a life extensionist I want to breathe clean
air whilst I restrict my calories and control my blood
lipid levels and blood glucose. I can't secure clean
air by my individual actions. I live in Maine, and we
can't even secure clean air by state laws because
most of our polluted air comes from other states.
BTW, the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictinary
defines libertarian as "a person who upholds the
principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty esp.
of thought and action". I asked a libertarian of my
acquaintance what he thought about mandatory
quarantine and restricted air travel because of SARs.
I had to endure a 5-minute tirade of how outrageous
and wrong-headed these restrictions are. He con-
cluded with his usual "slippery-slope argument". If
the government can prevent someone with a fever
from boarding an airplane today; then tomorrow
the government will prevent you from eating fillet
mignon because of "the unproven effect of satura-
ted fat on cardiovascular health".
> > For example, consider SARS. Several countries have
> > enforced a quarantine on people with SARS or pre-
> > vented people with SARS from getting on an airplane
> > to go wherever they wanted to. Do you think that's
> > tyrannical?
> No, those people are a threat to others. Others have the right to
neutralize
> the threat. This is the Libertarian way of thinking.
See the above, Carlos.
> > A libertarian would deeply resent an im-
> > posed quarantine or travel restriction.
> I'm sorry, but you don't understand Libertarianism.
> Carlos
Neither does the Merriam-Webster staff or most
libertarians.
George
George W. Cherry
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HE1oA...@bath.ac.uk...
Actually, the income tax laws in the United States give
a tax deduction for children. And families on welfare
receive welfare payments which pay for additional
children. Perhaps families on welfare should be re-
warded for not increasing their size.
Geoge
George W. Cherry
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HE1oA...@bath.ac.uk...
> >
> > You pretty much need to do that today. Income tax, sales tax, land tax,
> > inheritance tax - and so on - tax well over 95% of the population.
> >
> Which is an argument to end taxation, not to add another tax.
> > If the government wants to decrease the number of humans that can be
> > supported, they can raise taxes and increase the cost of living.
> Governments exist to protect individual rights, not engineer society.
Ideally governments exist to do whatever their
electorates want them to do. A lot or us want
governments to protect community rights. For
example, in Kittery Point, Maine we want
schools and public beaches and a library and
we don't want a certain landowner to build a
shopping mall on his land. These wants have
"tyrannized" individuals by taxing them ("rip-
ping money out of their pockets") and, in the
case of the landowner, doing what he wants
to do with his own land.
> > I don't know if a "birth tax" is the most effective means of controlling
> > population numbers - but it is what has already been tried - in China
> > for the past 25 years - and so we can see how well it works.
> I can't wait for a communist world government!
You'll have a long wait. The USA is in charge now,
and we don't like commies (that was WW III, and
we won it!). : o )
Now on to WW IV!
George
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HE1oA...@bath.ac.uk...
:> If the government wants to decrease the number of humans that can be
:> supported, they can raise taxes and increase the cost of living.
: Governments exist to protect individual rights, not engineer society.
That's not a characterisation I accept.
Nowhere is it written that that's what governments are "for".
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HE1oA...@bath.ac.uk...
:> Carlos Antunes <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
:> : "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HDzxB...@bath.ac.uk...
:> :> Taxes on babies would just be more of the same.
:>
:> : Oh, shit, that's what we really need. You need to pay the government for
:> : the right to be alive.
:>
:> You pretty much need to do that today. Income tax, sales tax, land tax,
:> inheritance tax - and so on - tax well over 95% of the population.
[...]
:> I don't know if a "birth tax" is the most effective means of controlling
:> population numbers - but it is what has already been tried - in China
:> for the past 25 years - and so we can see how well it works.
: Actually, the income tax laws in the United States give
: a tax deduction for children. And families on welfare
: receive welfare payments which pay for additional
: children. [...]
It's much the same in my country. Also we have almost totally
state-sponsored education and child health care. The government
penalises those who do not reproduce - and passes the winnings
on to those who do.
Overall, rather different from the situation in China.
Carlos Antunes
>
> : Governments exist to protect individual rights, not engineer society.
>
> That's not a characterisation I accept.
> Nowhere is it written that that's what governments are "for".
>
The only way for governments to engineer society is to use force against
individuals. Has I believe it is wrong to initiate the use of force against
individuals, it follows governments should engineer society.
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote:
:> : Governments exist to protect individual rights, not engineer society.
:>
:> That's not a characterisation I accept.
:> Nowhere is it written that that's what governments are "for".
: The only way for governments to engineer society is to use force against
: individuals. Has I believe it is wrong to initiate the use of force against
: individuals, it follows governments should engineer society.
"Not" - I presume.
They can /threaten/ them with force. It happens all the time.
Think about what would happen if you persisted in refusing to pay your taxes.
Of course, governments must also be prepared to initiate the use of force
against individuals if it is to be at all effective at policing society
against non-violent crime - such as theft.
Carlos Antunes
>
> They can /threaten/ them with force. It happens all the time.
>
The fact that it happens all the time doesn't mean it's ok.
>
> Think about what would happen if you persisted in refusing to pay your
taxes.
>
What would happen?
>
> Of course, governments must also be prepared to initiate the use of force
> against individuals if it is to be at all effective at policing society
> against non-violent crime - such as theft.
>
Theft is non-violent? Since when?
George W. Cherry
take your supplements, and then breath the toxic
air. And DON'T screw around with our rights to
drive polluting cars and so on.
George W. Cherry
Air Pollution May Damage Brain, Heart
Studies suggest it can cause Alzheimer's-like lesions, heart problems
By Leonard Lee
HealthScoutNews Reporter
WEDNESDAY, April 16 (HealthScoutNews) -- Air pollution may cause brain
damage similar to Alzheimer's disease, as well as heart problems, two new
studies suggest.
Dogs exposed to air pollution were found to develop damaged brain cell genes
in as little as four weeks, according to research presented April 15 at the
Experimental Biology 2003 conference in San Diego.
The animals were exposed to the highly polluted air in different parts of
Mexico City, and compared against a control group of dogs kept in
less-polluted rural parts of Mexico. Mexico City is considered one of the
worst cities in the world for air pollution.
More than 200 dogs were involved in the study, which lasted for more than a
year. The dogs in the highly polluted environment suffered lung and upper
respiratory damage, which let particles enter the central nervous system,
leading to gene and DNA damage in their brain cells. Even dogs less than 1
year old were found to have brain lesions similar to those of human
Alzheimer's patients, the researchers say.
Lead researcher Dr. Lilian Calderon-Garciduenas, of the University of North
Carolina, says exposure to air pollution causes inflammation in the
respiratory tract, which lets tiny airborne particles and metals enter the
central nervous system and brain. This, in turn, causes oxidative damage and
DNA changes in brain cells.
Air pollution breaks down the vital blood-brain barrier that usually keeps
toxic substances away from the brain, she says.
"This is extremely important," says Calderon-Garciduenas, "because once you
break down the barriers, you have an entrance for pollutants directly to
your brain."
The researchers also found signs of lung damage in children as young as 4
years old who were raised in Mexico City.
"The same breakdown in the respiratory system we're seeing in dogs is
happening in children and adults in Mexico City," Calderon-Garciduenas
contends, "and it probably also happens in cities like Los Angeles."
A separate study presented at the same symposium found a link between air
pollution and heart problems in humans.
Exposure to air pollution raised levels of certain peptides in the
bloodstream that can constrict blood vessels and decrease blood flow to the
heart muscle, the researchers found.
The study was conducted at the Gage Institute of the University of Toronto,
where healthy volunteers were exposed to air pollution in a laboratory
setting. The volunteers were subjected to air pollution about two to three
times the level normally found in Toronto, which is considered one of North
America's less-polluted major cities.
The study focused on endothelin, a naturally occurring peptide that plays an
important role in blood vessel health.
"If we expose healthy humans to airborne particulates, we can document a
doubling of endothelin in the blood," says Renaud Vincent, one of the
researchers and head of Health Canada's Inhalation Toxicology and
Aerobiology Section.
"We now have at least one mechanism that could plausibly explain how someone
with a heart condition exposed to a low level of air pollution could die or
come down with severe symptoms, such as congestive heart failure," Vincent
says.
Recent epidemiological studies have found higher rates of death and
hospitalization in cities with high levels of air pollution. Vincent says
the culprit appears to be airborne particulates.
When test subjects breathed polluted air for as little as two hours, the
level of vasoconstrictive peptides in their blood rose sharply and stayed at
abnormally high levels for as long as 24 hours, even without further
exposure. The changes in peptide levels were proportionate to the
concentration of particles to which the subjects were exposed.
"The picture is starting to come together of why we see these spikes in
mortality associated with air pollution levels," says Fred Miller, a
researcher with CIIT Centers for Health Research, an independent, non-profit
research organization based in North Carolina's Research Triangle Park.
"The mortality may be coming about because you have this exposure, and how
well can your system handle this added stressor?" he says.
Elevated levels of endothelin can reduce blood flow by as much as 50
percent, particularly in people with atherosclerosis, high blood pressure
and diabetes, Vincent says.
Further study needs to be done on which specific particulates and their
components produce the rise in vasoconstrictive peptide levels, he says.
More information
To learn more about the health risks posed by air pollution, visit the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Resources Institute.
SOURCES: Lilian Calderon-Garciduenas, M.D., Ph.D., postdoctoral trainee,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Renaud Vincent, Ph.D., Head,
Inhalation Toxicology and Aerobiology Section, Health Canada, Toronto; Fred
Miller, Ph.D., vice president, research, CIIT Centers for Health Research,
Charlotte, N.C.; April 15, 2003, presentation, Experimental Biology 2003
conference, San Diego
Copyright Š 2003 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
George W. Cherry
By Daniel DeNoon
May 1, 2003 -- Smog threatens the health of nearly half of all Americans,
according to the American Lung Association's State of the Air 2003 report.
The report examines air quality data for 1999-2001, the most recent data
from the EPA. It ranks air quality for ozone pollution.
Los Angeles holds on to its top ranking as the U.S. city with the worst air.
Portland, Ore., and San Francisco are the two largest cities among the 20
cities with the best air.
The release of the report also marks the beginning of the annual ozone
season, when the summer heat traditionally increases the level of smog.
The ALA's annual report looks at ozone levels across the country. Ozone, one
of the most toxic ingredients in the soupy air we all know as smog, is a
form of oxygen that even at low levels can cause health problems such as
shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.
This year, the nation's air got a little bit better -- but that's only
because of lucky weather, says ALA president John Kirkwood. Yet the report
showed that 55% of counties with ozone monitors received an "F" rating on
air quality.
"We can point to no significant ozone improvements other than a few lucky
changes in the weather," Kirkwood says in a news release. "We can't depend
on Mother Nature to protect Americans from disease and death caused by
breathing human-made smog. It's time to fight for our right to breathe clean
air and for America to solve the air pollution problems that Americans
create."
The report is highly critical of the Bush administration's efforts to
"repeal, weaken, and delay" the nation's Clean Air Act.
Jeffrey Soreff
> "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HDxz5...@bath.ac.uk...
> >
> > What might work is a big, powerful world government - with long-term
> > resource management in mind.
> >
>
> It's been tried before and failed. It was called the USSR.
It is also worth noting that, of the 4 most populous
political entities in the 20th century, China, India,
the USSR, and the US, 2 of the 4 killed 10s of
millions of their own people. Building a global
government, an even more populous political
entity, would be one hellish gamble. It does us
no good to gain modest life extensions through
CR and supplements, then wind up as the 21st
century equivalent of one of Mao's 30 million
hungry ghosts. Incremental pollution reduction
has some benefits - but not ones worth gambling
on the benevolence of a global government.
Best wishes,
-Jeff
Tim Tyler
I reckon that humanity's best hope of long term survival involves
cooperation on a global scale. Management on a large scale seems
to be a logical step.
One of the points of democratic frameworks is to prevent mass
exploitation of the populous by the government. It seems to
have worked reasonably well so far.
Carlos Antunes
>
> I reckon that humanity's best hope of long term survival involves
> cooperation on a global scale.
>
Personally, I am more concerned about *MY* survival.
>
> Management on a large scale seems
> to be a logical step.
>
Central planning doesn't work. History has repeatdly shown this simple fact.
Why some people still believe in this is tottaly beyong my comprehension.
Carlos, The Capitalist Pig
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HEwAq...@bath.ac.uk...
:> I reckon that humanity's best hope of long term survival involves
:> cooperation on a global scale.
: Personally, I am more concerned about *MY* survival.
Indeed - but this thread is about the Earth's longevity.
:> Management on a large scale seems to be a logical step.
: Central planning doesn't work. History has repeatdly shown this simple fact.
: Why some people still believe in this is tottaly beyong my comprehension.
The inefficiencies of competition are equally glaring. Companies
privately duplicate one anothers work, and arrive at the market at
the same time with the same product. Anyone can see this is wasteful.
History hasn't shown that central planning doesn't work.
If that was the conclusion there would be no large companies.
Carlos Antunes
>
> : Personally, I am more concerned about *MY* survival.
>
> Indeed - but this thread is about the Earth's longevity.
>
I thought this newsgroup had to do about individual human lifespan.
Apparently I was mistaken, sorry!
>
> The inefficiencies of competition are equally glaring. Companies
> privately duplicate one anothers work, and arrive at the market at
> the same time with the same product. Anyone can see this is wasteful.
>
How come decentralized economies tend to outperform centralized ones, then?
Some kind of miracle?
>
> History hasn't shown that central planning doesn't work.
>
Right!
>
> If that was the conclusion there would be no large companies.
>
You seem to forget that employees of those companies are free to leave and
start their own companies if they so wish or work for competitors, thus
preserving a fairly high degree of competition. Now, try to disobey the
orders given by the Central Planning Agency of your preferred country and
see what happens to you.
Carlos Antunes
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HEwGG...@bath.ac.uk...
:>
:> : Personally, I am more concerned about *MY* survival.
:>
:> Indeed - but this thread is about the Earth's longevity.
: I thought this newsgroup had to do about individual human lifespan.
There is a connection - if the Earth dies then so will any individual
human beings on it.
:> The inefficiencies of competition are equally glaring. Companies
:> privately duplicate one anothers work, and arrive at the market at
:> the same time with the same product. Anyone can see this is wasteful.
: How come decentralized economies tend to outperform centralized ones, then?
I don't know what the statistics say regarding your premise there.
Governmental control doesn't /have/ to be completely centralised to work
effectively. With many natural complex systems - e.g. animal bodies -
there are compromises between centralised and distributed control. Yes,
there is often an overseeing brain - but it doesn't control everything.
Distributed control works faster, and eliminates a communications overhead
- so it makes sense to control some things locally.
What I envisage is humanity coming to work more like a single organism -
not necessarily complete control resting in the sands of some individual.
:> History hasn't shown that central planning doesn't work.
: Right!
:> If that was the conclusion there would be no large companies.
: You seem to forget that employees of those companies are free to leave and
: start their own companies if they so wish or work for competitors, thus
: preserving a fairly high degree of competition. Now, try to disobey the
: orders given by the Central Planning Agency of your preferred country and
: see what happens to you.
Well, this seems like a bit of a different issue to whether centralised
planning works.
I reckon my options under a world government would be much the same as
they are at the moment - i.e. if I don't like the way the government is
treating me I can complain through various channels, and/or attempt to
vote them out of power at the next opportunity.
The only option missing would be the one of skipping the country for
somewhere else entirely.
If the government wanted to talk to me for disobeying their orders then
this probably would not be permitted anyway - but perhaps I could have
escaped rather than get into trouble in the first place.
I expect there would still be scope for local variation - even if it
was more like travelling between different states than between different
countries.
I fully expect we will get something like a world government at some
stage - though obviously not for a while - with the world united by a
common language, currency, laws and political system, with global
participation in issues such as trade, politics, defense and conservation.
Carlos Antunes
>
> There is a connection - if the Earth dies then so will any individual
> human beings on it.
>
Humans have been transforming Earth for the past couple millions years to
make it easier for humans to live on Earth. What makes you think this
process would suddenly stop?
>
> I don't know what the statistics say regarding your premise there.
>
Just look at the world around you.
>
> Governmental control doesn't /have/ to be completely centralised to work
> effectively. With many natural complex systems - e.g. animal bodies -
> there are compromises between centralised and distributed control. Yes,
> there is often an overseeing brain - but it doesn't control everything.
> Distributed control works faster, and eliminates a communications overhead
> - so it makes sense to control some things locally.
>
What makes you think that people who make up those Governments aren't going
to act in their own self-interest? What makes you think that individuals
should be controlled by others simply because they are part of a Government?
Shouldn't individual freedom be respected?
>
> What I envisage is humanity coming to work more like a single organism -
> not necessarily complete control resting in the sands of some individual.
>
Ah, the Borg. Thanks but no thanks. I value my individuality too much for me
to allow being assimilated.
>
> I reckon my options under a world government would be much the same as
> they are at the moment - i.e. if I don't like the way the government is
> treating me I can complain through various channels, and/or attempt to
> vote them out of power at the next opportunity.
>
It baffles me at the thought you think it's ok for a Government to treat
badly in the first place.
>
> The only option missing would be the one of skipping the country for
> somewhere else entirely.
>
Yeah, so much for individual freedom.
>
> I fully expect we will get something like a world government at some
> stage - though obviously not for a while - with the world united by a
> common language, currency, laws and political system, with global
> participation in issues such as trade, politics, defense and conservation.
>
Fourth Reich?
Carlos Antunes
Carlos Antunes
news:ba0i2e$5d2dn$4...@midnight.cs.hut.fi...
> In article <c5Pwa.10767$823....@news1.east.cox.net>,
> Carlos Antunes <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
>
> >Humans have been transforming Earth for the past couple millions years to
> >make it easier for humans to live on Earth. What makes you think this
> >process would suddenly stop?
>
>
As I said, what makes you think humans will stop transforming Earth to
improve their life on this planet?
Carlos Antunes.
Carlos Antunes
>
> >As I said, what makes you think humans will stop transforming Earth to
> >improve their life on this planet?
>
>
Marcus,
You are not making any sense, man. If Humankind has been improving human
life on Earth, how come our nest is doomed?
Carlos Antunes.
Jeffrey Soreff
> Jeffrey Soreff <"soreff"@vnet.ibm.comE...@fishkill.rscsinternal> wrote:
> : Carlos Antunes wrote:
> :> "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HDxz5...@bath.ac.uk...
>
> :> > What might work is a big, powerful world government - with long-term
> :> > resource management in mind.
> :>
> :> It's been tried before and failed. It was called the USSR.
>
> : It is also worth noting that, of the 4 most populous
> : political entities in the 20th century, China, India,
> : the USSR, and the US, 2 of the 4 killed 10s of
> : millions of their own people. Building a global
> : government, an even more populous political
> : entity, would be one hellish gamble. It does us
> : no good to gain modest life extensions through
> : CR and supplements, then wind up as the 21st
> : century equivalent of one of Mao's 30 million
> : hungry ghosts. Incremental pollution reduction
> : has some benefits - but not ones worth gambling
> : on the benevolence of a global government.
>
> I reckon that humanity's best hope of long term survival involves
> cooperation on a global scale. Management on a large scale seems
> to be a logical step.
Do you have any evidence that this would do more good
than harm? As I described above, we have experimental
evidence for the lethal harm from large political entities.
> One of the points of democratic frameworks is to prevent mass
> exploitation of the populous by the government. It seems to
> have worked reasonably well so far.
Democratic frameworks are not a panacea for avoiding
lethal governments. The pre-civil-war US had a federal
government with democratic elements. Nonetheless,
this framework constructed a set of federal and state
governments which gave the US the most lethal war
it has experienced. Admittedly this was less lethal than
Mao or Stalin, still, civil war casualties were vastly
larger than anything the US can expect from e.g.
global warming.
Best wishes,
-Jeff
Carlos Antunes
>
> >You are not making any sense, man. If Humankind has been improving human
> >life on Earth, how come our nest is doomed?
>
> irreversible global damage later on. Surely you have realized this?
>
I realize we are too ignorant to predict the future. However, relying on
past trends, it seems life on Earth in the future for humans is going to be
better, not worse.
Carlos Antunes
Carlos Antunes
wrote in message news:ba0a60$pt6$1...@news.btv.ibm.com...
>
> Do you have any evidence that this would do more good
> than harm? As I described above, we have experimental
> evidence for the lethal harm from large political entities.
>
A great example is the European Union which lately is trying to severely
restrict dietary supplements. Anyone that thinks that an even bigger world
government would do differently must be living in a different planet, for
sure!
Carlos Antunes.
Tim Tyler
...but we also have experimental evidence of lethal harm from multiple
small poltitical entities - namely wars. Where does that leave things?
Unfortunately these are early days. History provides rather poor
evidence in terms of experimental tests of political regimes. Not
very much has been tried, records of the early efforts are poor,
and the number of recorded experiments has been rather limited.
:> One of the points of democratic frameworks is to prevent mass
:> exploitation of the populous by the government. It seems to
:> have worked reasonably well so far.
: Democratic frameworks are not a panacea for avoiding
: lethal governments. The pre-civil-war US had a federal
: government with democratic elements. Nonetheless,
: this framework constructed a set of federal and state
: governments which gave the US the most lethal war
: it has experienced. Admittedly this was less lethal than
: Mao or Stalin, still, civil war casualties were vastly
: larger than anything the US can expect from e.g.
: global warming.
Well nothing's perfect. If - for example - the elected
representatives turn into a dictatorship, then a revolution
will be needed to oust them - and it might be a bloody one.
However, so far this hasn't happened very much. Mostly democratic
institutions have avoided revolutions and severe internal upsets.
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HEx6D...@bath.ac.uk...
:> There is a connection - if the Earth dies then so will any individual
:> human beings on it.
: Humans have been transforming Earth for the past couple millions years to
: make it easier for humans to live on Earth. What makes you think this
: process would suddenly stop?
I never suggested it would *suddenly* stop.
Most planets die. There are many ways ours could go. It could cool, lose
its electromagnetic field, and have its atmosphere and water stripped off
by the sun's glare - leaving it looking like Mars. Failing that, our
Sun will explode in a while. There's a fair chance the Earth will be
totally fried by it before that happens.
:> What I envisage is humanity coming to work more like a single organism -
:> not necessarily complete control resting in the sands of some individual.
: Ah, the Borg. [...]
A fair analogy in many respects, yes.
Both myself and the Borg's inventors have insect colonies in mind -
thus the "Borg drone".
Evolution often progresses by forming collectives. Mitochondria within
cells, cells within organisms, and ants within their nests are examples.
It happens when a collection works better together than its parts do
separately - when there is synergy.
Humans are obviously forming social collectives - in the forms of
companies and organisations - and we work together synergistically.
We are not yet forming as well-integrated collections as in some of the
examples above - but then evolution hasn't been working on our new case
for very long yet.
Carlos Antunes
>
> >I realize we are too ignorant to predict the future. However, relying on
> >past trends, it seems life on Earth in the future for humans is going to
be
> >better, not worse.
>
the
> future - it's very seldom a valid approach.
>
So, what kind of extrapolation should we use? Not that I think it should be
linear, though.
Carlos Antunes
>
>
> Evolution often progresses by forming collectives. Mitochondria within
> cells, cells within organisms, and ants within their nests are examples.
>
You forget individual human freedom. I don't want to be part of any
collective. May I have your permission to continue to be an individual?
>
> It happens when a collection works better together than its parts do
> separately - when there is synergy.
>
Will you allow me to decide for myself whether I want to work together or
individually?
>
> Humans are obviously forming social collectives - in the forms of
> companies and organisations - and we work together synergistically.
>
By choice, not by imposition due to a world government.
>
> We are not yet forming as well-integrated collections as in some of the
> examples above - but then evolution hasn't been working on our new case
> for very long yet.
>
Evolution is dead for humans.
Carlos Antunes.
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HEz23...@bath.ac.uk...
:> Evolution often progresses by forming collectives. Mitochondria within
:> cells, cells within organisms, and ants within their nests are examples.
: You forget individual human freedom. I don't want to be part of any
: collective. May I have your permission to continue to be an individual?
I'm not in charge. Currently nobody is.
:> We are not yet forming as well-integrated collections as in some of the
:> examples above - but then evolution hasn't been working on our new case
:> for very long yet.
: Evolution is dead for humans.
I'm inclined towards the view expressed in:
"Children of Prometheus: The Accelerating Pace of Human Evolution" -
by Christopher Wills.
Several factors lead to a modern explosion in the rate of change in
heritable information associated with humans.
Mostly, these are associated with the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired
characteristics - which has take off with the advent of human culture.
Our new-found ability to apply intelligent design to organisms'
genomes seems likely to further increase the rate of change.
Carlos Antunes
>
> : You forget individual human freedom. I don't want to be part of any
> : collective. May I have your permission to continue to be an individual?
>
> I'm not in charge. Currently nobody is.
>
Are you saying that if "someone" is in charge, it's ok to repress individual
human freedom in exchange for some kind of collective ideal?
>
> "Children of Prometheus: The Accelerating Pace of Human Evolution" -
> by Christopher Wills.
>
I'm inclined towards the view that in 200 years there won't be any humans
around. Our "children" will be spiritual machines.
"The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence" by
Ray Kurzweil
Biological evolution for humans is mostly dead.
Carlos Antunes.
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HEzHo...@bath.ac.uk...
:>
:> : You forget individual human freedom. I don't want to be part of any
:> : collective. May I have your permission to continue to be an individual?
:>
:> I'm not in charge. Currently nobody is.
: Are you saying that if "someone" is in charge, it's ok to repress individual
: human freedom in exchange for some kind of collective ideal?
I'm going to have to direct you to what I actually wrote.
:> "Children of Prometheus: The Accelerating Pace of Human Evolution" -
:> by Christopher Wills.
: I'm inclined towards the view that in 200 years there won't be any humans
: around. Our "children" will be spiritual machines.
: "The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence" by
: Ray Kurzweil
: Biological evolution for humans is mostly dead.
I am likely to regard any near-future machine dominant lifeforms on our
planet as our biological descendants - assuming they share a substantial
degree of heritable information with us.
However I have to say I think your time frame is /incredibly/ short.
Cometary impacts aside, I reckon there will still be recognisable human
beings around a few hundred years hence.
Kurzweil and Moravec have a thing for short time scales. I figure it
has something to do with making big headlines out of their tales - and
attracting funding for their projects.
I figure the humans are currently about five billion years of
evolution-worth ahead of the machines.
Now genetic engineering exists, designed organisms can also make
progress using intelligent design - and they have the advantage of
already having mastered molecular nanotechnology - and being streets
ahead in the design of things that can /actually/ survive on the
planet, without constant maintenance from humans.
The machines don't seem likely to me to wipe out their organic progenitors.
Indeed, they're fairly clearly on our side. We will join with them.
Together our strengths will be combined.
Carlos Antunes
>
> Something based on a model that's a little bit more sophisticated than the
> 'business as usual' - model.
>
And you have something concrete to prose or are simply blowing hot air?
Carlos Antunes
>
> : Are you saying that if "someone" is in charge, it's ok to repress
individual
> : human freedom in exchange for some kind of collective ideal?
>
> I'm going to have to direct you to what I actually wrote.
>
Would it be that difficult for you to actually answer my question?
>
> I am likely to regard any near-future machine dominant lifeforms on our
> planet as our biological descendants - assuming they share a substantial
> degree of heritable information with us.
>
Well, that would be a question of interpretation.
>
> However I have to say I think your time frame is /incredibly/ short.
>
Considering that 99% of all technological advances happened on the last 100
years, I have no problem accepting a super-exponential growth (power-law).
>
> I figure the humans are currently about five billion years of
> evolution-worth ahead of the machines.
>
Robots don't need Evolution. They just need human brains thinking about how
to bring them about.
>
> The machines don't seem likely to me to wipe out their organic
progenitors.
>
Those people-machines don't even exist yet and you already know what they
are likely not to do. Wow, I'm impressed!
Carlos Antunes.
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1.org> wrote in message news:HEzoK...@bath.ac.uk...
:> : Are you saying that if "someone" is in charge, it's ok to repress
:> : individual human freedom in exchange for some kind of collective
:> : ideal?
:>
:> I'm going to have to direct you to what I actually wrote.
: Would it be that difficult for you to actually answer my question?
No.
:> I am likely to regard any near-future machine dominant lifeforms on our
:> planet as our biological descendants - assuming they share a substantial
:> degree of heritable information with us.
: Well, that would be a question of interpretation.
:> However I have to say I think your time frame is /incredibly/ short.
: Considering that 99% of all technological advances happened on the last 100
: years, I have no problem accepting a super-exponential growth (power-law).
I also think things will continue to accelerate - in most spheres - for
some time to come.
:> I figure the humans are currently about five billion years of
:> evolution-worth ahead of the machines.
: Robots don't need Evolution. They just need human brains thinking about how
: to bring them about.
Evolution seems likely to continue for the next few billion years. It
will affect our descendants regardless of whether they are man or machine.
:> The machines don't seem likely to me to wipe out their organic
:> progenitors.
: Those people-machines don't even exist yet and you already know what they
: are likely not to do. Wow, I'm impressed!
Weren't you just a moment ago advising me that you thought there would be
no human beings left in 200 years - and that human evolution was over?
It seems we're both attempting to look into the future.
200 years is a long time - too long, a time period perhaps to
sensibly say very much about.
It does seem fair to say that genetic engineering evens the score
somewhat - carbon-based life can be engineered as much as other sorts
of machines can.
The idea of humans being wiped out my machines also neglects the
possibility of an extended man-machine symbiosis.
I have a preference for an extended symbiosis. It seems to me that
most of the "sudden switch" scenarios - e.g. the "grey goo" idea -
are too destructive to be reasonably tolerated.
George W. Cherry
"Carlos Inanetunes" wrote:
> "Tim Tyler" wrote:
> > Evolution often progresses by forming collectives. Mitochondria within
> > cells, cells within organisms, and ants within their nests are examples.
> You forget individual human freedom. I don't want to be part of any
> collective. May I have your permission to continue to be an individual?
Absolutely. I wouldn't want to belong to a club
in which you're a member.
> > It happens when a collection works better together than its parts do
> > separately - when there is synergy.
Work alone. Please. In fact, why not just
write your posts in a diary.
> Will you allow me to decide for myself whether I want to work together or
> individually?
> > Humans are obviously forming social collectives - in the forms of
> > companies and organisations - and we work together synergistically.
> By choice, not by imposition due to a world government.
> > We are not yet forming as well-integrated collections as in some of the
> > examples above - but then evolution hasn't been working on our new case
> > for very long yet.
> Evolution is dead for humans.
Especially for people intellectually dead. See
Robert Wright's "Zero Sum: The Logic of
Human Destiny.
> Carlos Antunes.
Carlos Antunes
message news:Hbbxa.859542$3D1.490371@sccrnsc01...
>
> I wouldn't want to belong to a club
> in which you're a member.
>
And your point is?
>
> Work alone.
>
Why?
>
> In fact, why not just
> write your posts in a diary.
>
Why?
>
> Especially for people intellectually dead.
>
Right! I am intellectual dead because I don't want to be a part of your Borg
collective. So much for individual thought!
>
> See Robert Wright's "Zero Sum: The Logic of
> Human Destiny.
>
I don't believe in the existence of destiny. So sorry!
Carlos Antunes.