On 5/5/2010 9:16 AM, Christoph Reuss wrote: > I KNOW -- that modern man > > > can do better than cave man. > That is predicting the future (capabilities). That is not "empirical observation". That is a judgment or 'educated guess'
> My point is that modern society can and should choose progress instead of > a return to the stone age, see another 'opinion' about "progress" (which is how I see it and will bet on the future): from his Massey Lectures (U of Toronto) http://www.strategicforesight.com/bookreview_shorthistory.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Progress http://books.google.com/books?id=r4SOSOWIqlkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ronald+wright+short&source=bl&ots=gd4P8XxSD1&sig=d4eUWX1yMs75WEmGwF9uNz68SuM&hl=en&ei=FHPhS7ygHMGC8gb3r_3yDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBA > A stable civilized society is in the best interest of ALL Sure, no argument. But that has been the rare exception throughout human history. Given overshoot and resource bottlenecks, it is increasingly unlikely to recur in the future (IMO) > Can you list them? It's hard to find a regime that isn't puppets. > I listed a few dozen in my paper. I admit that was in the 90s, so have no certainty about current regimes. > Come on, if the billionaires would be concerned about war& environmental > security risks, they would invest in completely different approaches. > But that wouldn't make them billions, so they do the opposite. > Your certainty about the motivations of the ones who met re pop & envir (within past 2 yrs) implies mind reading. I'm incapable of that. I look at their funding of *voluntary* family planning globally and fully support it. (womens empowerment is -as I stated in the paper- the top factor in success) > Pathological greed doesn't ask about NEED -- they still WANT more money. > And more power. And getting rid of poor masses. > > Not biased, eh Chris? ;-) > But shouldn't those billionaires who claim to be environmentalists > WALK their talk? How can they ask from others the opposite of what they DO? > Some do.Some don't But ad hominem is my last form of argument. I used it against Gore! > Then why is there no money for green tech development, I think much of that investment is occuring in the developing countries which are not resource rich. Venture capital funds from the 'West' finds its way there. The entrenched industries in mature economies still (naturally) protects vestigial technologies, so the environment for fast development of new tech is hindered by lobbies and buying up (& shelving) possible competitors. Gates, Buffett, Soros, etc are not hands on in mgmt now. But underlings do likely protect their own turf and career paths. > In your paper, you mentioned Gore as a reference of authority -- along the > lines of: If this great man says that population growth is the biggest > enviro problem, then it must be true. > > If Gore says it, it must be a PR lie > serving the vested interests! And that's what it is. > Those are your words. I mentioned it precisely because it was *not* published anywhere else. I think it is the #1 driver. If the VP of the US thinks so but is constrained for whatever reasons from saying it, I was lucky to get that letter. It is potential ammo for the press/tv/internet if & when I choose to use it. I think he personally is a hotairbag. > We still could change course by removing the large predators from power. > Systemic collapse/failure is the only way I can see them being ousted. Hierarchy will revert to warlords, etc. Unless Hawking's aliens arrive and turn out to be all powerful and benevolent! ;-) Steve _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
