> > I KNOW -- that modern man > > > > can do better than cave man. > > That is predicting the future (capabilities). That is not "empirical > observation".
Obviously, the empirical observation refers to the past until present. In my society, modern man has been doing better than cave man during all of my life, and before. _You_ are predicting the future -- "the coming cull". > 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 The 1-star and 2-star reviews on Amazon.com sum up pretty well my opinion on this book. For example, an Anthropology Professor writes: | Wright's application of mostly discredited Malthusian principles to his | forecast of our civilizational downfall is pseudo-scientific at best. | The author abysmally fails to note the qualitative differences between | late-modern industrial societies and agrarian empires and chiefdoms, | altogether neglecting differences of scale and complexity. While this | book makes for an interesting read, I sincerely doubt that very many | serious anthropologists or ancient historians would lend any considerable | support to Wright's analyses. Wright presents shallow and partial Predator blah-blah without offering solutions. As if to justify the doom prepared by Predators! Which is probably the goal of that book, like similar pamphlets from the hair-shirt brigade. > > Can you list them? It's hard to find a regime that isn't puppets. > > I listed a few dozen in my paper. Again, these are all governments of rich polluters telling the poor to pollute/procreate less. So I can summarize that nowhere you provided any proof that the populations of developing countries have asked for their own reduction. Duh! > Your certainty about the motivations of the ones who met re pop & envir > (within past 2 yrs) implies mind reading. No, it just requires looking at their actions instead of their words. > I look at their funding of *voluntary* family planning globally This also falls into the category of rich guys telling the poor how to behave. > > 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 Which ones do, and how? Can you list their pro-greentech investments? > But ad hominem is my last form of argument. To observe that they don't walk their talk is NOT an ad hominem, it's an assessment of their credibility. > I think much of that investment is occuring in the developing countries > which are not resource rich. Developing countries are usually very resource rich, the problem is just that their imperial puppets are siphoning away the resources off to the West and to their private cleptocratic clans -- that's what colonialism has been about from the start. So it's just consistent that the cleptocrats want to reduce their own populations. Less poor means more for the rich, and less danger of a popular uprising. > 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. Here we're getting closer to the problem. But that's exactly where these billionaires would be NEEDED to jump in with their money to develop and introduce green technologies, so that hundreds of millions of Chinese e.g. don't switch from bicycles to SUVs, but to Twikes ;-) or something like that. But no, you can bet that the billionaires have stocks of the traditional car companies who see China as their Eldorado (even Rolls-Royce is to sell more cars in China than in any other country in the world). > > 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. ... so it would be counter-productive to use it! ;-) People would say: This clown also claimed that the North Pole will be ice-free in 5-7 years, and in this letter he claimed another doom hoax. If you insist on further stultifying the cave-men faction, just go on advertising with Al Gore... ;-)) > > 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. So you want to sink the whole ship just to get rid of a few hijackers. Such an attitude can indeed only lead to doom. The only hope for mankind is that people won't believe the cave-man PR. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
