Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/01/2009, at 4:42 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
> If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the
> food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it.
> I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that
> actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more
> energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply
> into the food supply, great.  Hadn't heard of this.

Depends where you are. In Fiji, and possibly in some of the other  
island nations, palm oil is used as biodiesel. Mainly 'cause you can  
only eat so many coconuts, I suspect...

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 12:09 AM Tuesday 1/6/2009, xponentrob wrote:

>xponent
>Watt?The Current News Is Shocking Mr Volta! Maru
>rob


Ohm, that's revolting.


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[xponentrob]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Bostwick" 
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?


> On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote:
>
>>> The few
>>> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry
>>> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto
>>> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c
>>> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or
>>> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in
>>> value.  To me, that seems unsustainable.  Am I missing something
>>> here?
>>
>> They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are
>> happily doing it for them.  The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has
>> fallen
>> about 50%.  Electric cars are toys for the rich.  Battery technology
>> has not
>> improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi-
>> billion
>> battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside
>> of the
>> car market, by marketing a better battery.
>
> Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely
> possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range.  If
> it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics
> holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to
> license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned
> subsidiary of Chevron.

Most of the electrics are using Lithium Ion batteries and getting ranges 
similar to what you posit here. Indeed, several exceed 140 MPC, though they 
generally are high end and expensive.
Altairnano Technology has batteries that will work like "new" after 180,000 
miles. There are plenty of amazing advances being made currently (NPI).



>
> Toyota lost the patent lawsuit over the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4-
> EV, which is one major reason why it never made it to production, and
> the only reason RAV4-EV's are still on the road is that their leases
> weren't as airtight with the no-buyout language as those for the EV1,
> which GM reposessed en masse and sent to the crusher the moment the
> California ZEV mandate was effectively nullified.
>
> The demand is there, make no mistake about it.  As soon as a 100-mile-
> range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people who
> would much rather charge their cars overnight (on off-peak electrical
> power, at home) and get the energy equivalent of 150 mpg (even
> counting the overall 70% charge efficiency of the battery system) for
> the daily commute.  Enough that even one production generation will
> bring the concept close enough to maturity for them to displace
> gasoline-powered vehicles.
>
> The Prius isn't quite what it could be.  In a plug-chargeable
> configuration (which is sold, and legal, everywhere but the USA --
> ever notice that blank spot in the row of buttons on the dash?  In
> Japan, the "EV" button goes there -- the car runs entirely off the
> battery for a significant distance, which could be substantially
> improved with a different battery/charger/firmware arrangement.) a lot
> of short-range commutes become grid-powered.  It's not a hard
> conversion if you don't mind voiding the warranty, people are doing it
> successfully here.  The demand is dropping mainly because a
> substantial part of this country's population thinks gasoline prices
> will never, ever go back up.  Is that the best metric to go by when
> forecasting demand?

The Chevy Volt looks like it has a chance to be a Prius killer. It is just a 
better system.


>
>> Contrast this with the bioengineered biofuel market, which the US is
>> clearly
>> leading.  European rules are so strict, they might as well prohibit
>> bioengineering.  But, in the US, costs for the tools of the trade are
>> dropping faster than Moore's law: almost a factor of two per year.
>> This
>> isn't PC, because we're tampering with nature, but it has a much
>> better
>> chance of working than solutions that have a horrid cost/benefit
>> ratio.
>
> If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the
> food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it.
> I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that
> actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more
> energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply
> into the food supply, great.  Hadn't heard of this.
>

These days I'm looking cynically at biofuels. they do nothing to reduce CO2 
levels in most cases (most applications are for ICE), but there is some hope 
for a good fuel for Fuel Cells and there *will* be a long term need for 
diesels.

xponent
Watt?The Current News Is Shocking Mr Volta! Maru
rob 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 11:42 PM Monday 1/5/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote:

>The demand is there, make no mistake about it.  As soon as a 100-mile-
>range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people



Although there are still plenty of people who 
live in places like the Western US where there is 
nothing but empty desert and sagebrush within a 
100-mile radius of where they live.



>[…]
>
>The Prius isn't quite what it could be.  In a plug-chargeable
>configuration (which is sold, and legal, everywhere but the USA --
>ever notice that blank spot in the row of buttons on the dash?



That's where some of those who live in those big 
blank spaces out West put the switch for the 
after-market driving lights which are needed when 
driving on some of those long uninterrupted 
stretches of road to avoid becoming one with some 
of the nocturnal desert fauna, and which use a 
fair amount of electricity when on.

Point being, as has been mentioned previously, 
there are some parts of the US at least where a 
vehicle such as described will not serve the 
need, or where one with those limitations might 
be enough for some trips but for which at least 
weekly or monthly frex something with a much 
longer potential range is needed.  It's similar 
to when the Segway was introduced:  except in 
perhaps NYC and DC where some people who live in 
the city are able to do entirely without 
automobiles most of us in the US at least fairly 
regularly need something which goes faster than 
12 mph and further than a few miles, is 
weatherproof, and can carry (often multiple) 
children and cargo (like a week's groceries for 
the family and/or the kid's school and sports 
equipment), and can't afford $5K for an 
additional vehicle with those limitations which 
would make it useless for their purposes much of the time.



>"When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on
>the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and
>national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening
>family life, which would include health care, education, and
>retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and
>sentence structure. And one on fractions." -- Toby Ziegler


I doubt I am alone in thinking that the latter 
two should be mandatory for everyone entering 
public service before they are allowed to do 
anything else.  (And I realize that it is a quote 
from a fictional character.  Doesn't mean there's no truth in it.


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowed principle of physics

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 10:45 PM Monday 1/5/2009, Julia Thompson wrote:


>On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> > http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html
> >
> > An apple and an anti-apple might not fall at the same rate.
> >
> >
> >
> > xponent
> > But A Mac And An Anti-Apple 2E Do Maru
> > rob
>
>Wow, it's almost 11PM, and I was almost despairing of encountering a good
>reason not to have liquids at the computer today!  Congratulations, Rob!
>
> Julia


I keep worrying about what a good spew would do 
to this new flat-screen monitor:  I'm not sure 
having a spray bottle of Windex™ and a roll of 
paper towels by the screen is the best thing 
anymore . . . or am I being unnecessarily paranoid?


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote:

>> The few
>> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry
>> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto
>> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c
>> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or
>> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in
>> value.  To me, that seems unsustainable.  Am I missing something
>> here?
>
> They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are
> happily doing it for them.  The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has  
> fallen
> about 50%.  Electric cars are toys for the rich.  Battery technology  
> has not
> improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi- 
> billion
> battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside  
> of the
> car market, by marketing a better battery.

Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely  
possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range.  If  
it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics  
holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to  
license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned  
subsidiary of Chevron.

Toyota lost the patent lawsuit over the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4- 
EV, which is one major reason why it never made it to production, and  
the only reason RAV4-EV's are still on the road is that their leases  
weren't as airtight with the no-buyout language as those for the EV1,  
which GM reposessed en masse and sent to the crusher the moment the  
California ZEV mandate was effectively nullified.

The demand is there, make no mistake about it.  As soon as a 100-mile- 
range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people who  
would much rather charge their cars overnight (on off-peak electrical  
power, at home) and get the energy equivalent of 150 mpg (even  
counting the overall 70% charge efficiency of the battery system) for  
the daily commute.  Enough that even one production generation will  
bring the concept close enough to maturity for them to displace  
gasoline-powered vehicles.

The Prius isn't quite what it could be.  In a plug-chargeable  
configuration (which is sold, and legal, everywhere but the USA --  
ever notice that blank spot in the row of buttons on the dash?  In  
Japan, the "EV" button goes there -- the car runs entirely off the  
battery for a significant distance, which could be substantially  
improved with a different battery/charger/firmware arrangement.) a lot  
of short-range commutes become grid-powered.  It's not a hard  
conversion if you don't mind voiding the warranty, people are doing it  
successfully here.  The demand is dropping mainly because a  
substantial part of this country's population thinks gasoline prices  
will never, ever go back up.  Is that the best metric to go by when  
forecasting demand?

> Contrast this with the bioengineered biofuel market, which the US is  
> clearly
> leading.  European rules are so strict, they might as well prohibit
> bioengineering.  But, in the US, costs for the tools of the trade are
> dropping faster than Moore's law: almost a factor of two per year.   
> This
> isn't PC, because we're tampering with nature, but it has a much  
> better
> chance of working than solutions that have a horrid cost/benefit  
> ratio.

If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the  
food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it.   
I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that  
actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more  
energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply  
into the food supply, great.  Hadn't heard of this.

"When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on  
the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and  
national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening  
family life, which would include health care, education, and  
retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and  
sentence structure. And one on fractions." -- Toby Ziegler


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: on the telly again

[David Brin]

Hmmm... Just in case you were right about the manchurian-candidate
conspiracy (right conspiracy, wrong person :-)) I will stay in a natural
anti-nuclear protective valley on 2009-01-20... What if Obama is 
brainwashed by Bush and decides to wipe out the whole 
Western Civilization? :-)


I prefer conspiracy theories that at least have SOME basis in observed fact.  
Obama SEEMS to have the fewest IOUs to pay off of any entering president, ever.

No, the worry spreading everywhere is that there are powers desperate not to 
let the honest men into office.  The vulnerable hour is while Obama and Biden 
and a hundred others are standing right next to each other.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowed principle of physics

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 10:45 PM Monday 1/5/2009, Julia Thompson wrote:


>On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Rceeberger wrote:
>
> > http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html
> >
> > An apple and an anti-apple might not fall at the same rate.
> >
> >
> >
> > xponent
> > But A Mac And An Anti-Apple 2E Do Maru
> > rob
>
>Wow, it's almost 11PM, and I was almost despairing of encountering a good
>reason not to have liquids at the computer today!  Congratulations, Rob!
>
> Julia


Humor aside, wasn't the idea that a particle and its corresponding 
anti-particle might fall at different rates under the influence of 
gravity put forward and supposedly tested and rejected back in the 
80s?  I read the article and didn't see how this was different from 
what was suggested then (though the details are lacking) . . .


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

>>  The few
>> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry
>> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto
>> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c
>> hange into a PHEV/BEV
>
> "peta-hecto-electron-volt/billion-electron-volt"?

Pluggable hybrid electric vehicle/battery electric vehicle.  :)   
Apologies for the out-of-namespace acronyms.

"Way I remember it, albatross was a ship's good luck, 'til some idiot  
killed it ... Yes, I've read a poem. Try not to faint." -- Capt. Mal  
Reynolds, "Serenity"


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowed principle of physics

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Rceeberger wrote:

> http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html
>
> An apple and an anti-apple might not fall at the same rate.
>
>
>
> xponent
> But A Mac And An Anti-Apple 2E Do Maru
> rob

Wow, it's almost 11PM, and I was almost despairing of encountering a good 
reason not to have liquids at the computer today!  Congratulations, Rob!

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowed principle of physics

[Rceeberger]

http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html

An apple and an anti-apple might not fall at the same rate.



xponent
But A Mac And An Anti-Apple 2E Do Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin : Former Brineller makes good

[Charlie Bell]

>
>
> LESTER YOUNG AND THE JUPITER'S MOONS' BLUES, Gord Sellar (Asimov's,  
> July
> 2008)
>
> Good going Gord

And extra credit for getting two correct yet distinct possesive  
apostrophes so close together in the title!

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin : Former Brineller makes good

[Rceeberger]

I waited for someone else to mention this after seeing it on the Culture 
list.

Former listmember Gord Sellar got a story in "Years Best Science Fiction, 
26th annual edition"
for his story:

LESTER YOUNG AND THE JUPITER'S MOONS' BLUES, Gord Sellar (Asimov's, July 
2008)

Good going Gord

http://www.asimovs.com/aspnet_forum/messages.aspx?TopicID=1143&Page=3



xponent
Pass It On Maru
rob 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/01/2009, at 2:55 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>>
>> On 06/01/2009, at 2:37 PM, Dan M wrote:
>>>
>>> You have now forced me into the following response by this action  
>>> sir:
>>>
>>> I agree with you.
>>
>> Woohoo.
>
> Woo hoo?

Expression of delight. Usually accompanied with an exclamation mark  
and arms thrown aloft. But too tired and sick for excitement. I'm home  
watching the cricket, which gives you an idea of how sick I am right  
now... ;-)

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Julia Thompson]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Charlie Bell wrote:

>
> On 06/01/2009, at 2:37 PM, Dan M wrote:
>>
>> You have now forced me into the following response by this action sir:
>>
>> I agree with you.
>
> Woohoo.

Woo hoo?

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/01/2009, at 2:37 PM, Dan M wrote:
>
> You know you've now changed the subject from the original topic.

Conversational drift. Blame the viral load. Chewy phlegm. Yum.

>  I was
> arguing, rather convincingly IMHO, that the US was not horrid and  
> not about
> to fall.

Well, to drag it back - by some measures, the US *has* failed.  
Utterly. And the attitude that the US knows best does prevail through  
many areas (the recent hostile takeover of the International Human  
Powered Vehicle Association by the American contingent is just one  
example - newsflash the US IS NOT "International"...).

By others, the US is doing very nicely. Where would I be without my  
supply of big-budget SF movies and TV crime drama?

Put it this way - 8 *more* years of Bush (or if McCain had won) and  
the US would be in very serious strife, as would the rest of the  
world. Ideology can only trump reality for a while. Maybe, just maybe,  
under new leadership, the pendulum will swing back, and health,  
policing, international policy and respect for individual rights will  
improwe to the level the US collectively says it aspires to. I hope  
so, 'cause at the moment the world does at least look to the States as  
a belweather, even if they disagree.

>  Now, you change the argument to "the US is not the only country of
> worth; many other folks in many other countries have done good things.
> Furthermore, we're all dependant on the good work of those who came  
> before
> us"

Yes, 'cause it's worth remembering. :-)
>
>
> You have now forced me into the following response by this action sir:
>
> I agree with you.

Woohoo.

C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:15 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> 
> My attitude is not "America sucks", it's "hey hang on, the whole world
> has done some great stuff and let's give credit where it's due"). It
> irritates me just as much when the Brits say "we totally cracked the
> Enigma code, dude", 'cause the three-wheel Enigma was cracked by a
> Pole, who came up with the first calculating machines (the "bombes"),
> and this work was smuggled out of Poland in the diplomatic bag. This
> doesn't diminish in any way from Turing et al, who went on to crack
> the 4 and 5 wheel machines, and the Post Office engineer who built
> Colossus, and so on.
> 
> We're ALL standing on the shoulders of giants. Just cause the States
> is the biggest guy in the room right now doesn't make him the *only*
> guy in the room.

You know you've now changed the subject from the original topic.  I was
arguing, rather convincingly IMHO, that the US was not horrid and not about
to fall.  Now, you change the argument to "the US is not the only country of
worth; many other folks in many other countries have done good things.
Furthermore, we're all dependant on the good work of those who came before
us"  

You have now forced me into the following response by this action sir:

I agree with you.

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/01/2009, at 1:52 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> On an SF list you forget Aerospace?

Yes! The world's first supersonic jetliner was American! The world's  
largest passenger jet is American! The world's largest military  
transport is... American!!!

No, wait.

;-)

Admittedly, the most successful aircraft company in history is  
American (Boeing) and possibly the second (arguably Lockheed), and the  
longest serving planes are American (DC-3 and Hercules...), and the  
world's coolest looking interceptor was American (YF-23), and the  
world's most expensive bomber, and the Moon landings, and the Mars  
Rovers and so on. But plenty of the pioneering stuff in aerospace (the  
jet engine, the geostationary satellite, the first satellite, the  
first robot probe on the Moon) were done elsewhere.

My attitude is not "America sucks", it's "hey hang on, the whole world  
has done some great stuff and let's give credit where it's due"). It  
irritates me just as much when the Brits say "we totally cracked the  
Enigma code, dude", 'cause the three-wheel Enigma was cracked by a  
Pole, who came up with the first calculating machines (the "bombes"),  
and this work was smuggled out of Poland in the diplomatic bag. This  
doesn't diminish in any way from Turing et al, who went on to crack  
the 4 and 5 wheel machines, and the Post Office engineer who built  
Colossus, and so on.

We're ALL standing on the shoulders of giants. Just cause the States  
is the biggest guy in the room right now doesn't make him the *only*  
guy in the room.

Charlie.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Dan M]

> On an SF list you forget Aerospace?

I thought of it and meant to include it; does that count for partial credit?
:-)  Good catch.

Dan M. 
 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan  wrote:
>
>
> I think that you and virtually every economist differ on what are the
> fundamentals.  One fundamental is innovation.  Another is productivity.  US
> productivity has risen faster than other developed countries.  The US is
> either the home or the main market for virtually all medical innovations.
> Europe has made it virtually impossible for bioengineering firms to
> operate,
> and the US is doing very well there.  Since that's the only real hope for
> biofuels (e.g. algae farms producing aviation fuel), the US is well poised
> to be the leader in that field.
>

On an SF list you forget Aerospace?

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:37 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> 
> On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote:
> 
> > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction?
> >
> > Dan M.
> 
> I guess part of my cynicism is frustration at having had to live in
> the wake of the Boomers most of my life, and survive on the scraps
> they missed, when it seems the only response to my getting closer to
> actually joining the middle class and becoming financially stable is
> the goalposts moving farther away just when I think I'm about to get
> there.  

I'm sorry if you have financial hard times, but you write as though there is
finite pile of money and when it's gone, it's gone.

As I mentioned before, I personally know and worked alongside a team that
created tens of billions of wealth.  In my own small way
(http://tinyurl.com/8zp89c) I have created wealthby developing
techniques that allow for the accurate measurement of porosity while
drillingsaving time and thus money (it takes millions/day to operate big
oil rigs) by allowing companies to get the needed measurements while
drilling.  So, the growth in per capita GDP is not simply a funny number; it
reflects the growth of real per capita wealth.  

Indeed, even if you don't accept that the CPI slightly overstates inflation,
deny Brad DeLongs persuasive arguments that inflation has been about 9% less
for lower income people than higher income people, and dismiss the value of
the rise in the benefits obtained by the average family, the average
household income is now higher than it was when I was in my 20s.  So, while
you might be on hard times, hard times existed in the '60s-'80s too.  

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Scouted: Times Online: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

[Nick Arnett]

Interesting read.  Posted here at the risk of ignition...

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs GodMissionaries, not aid money,
are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the
people's mindset

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

excerpt:

"Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a
direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by
the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight
through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers
something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal
groupthink. That is why and how it liberates."
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: on the telly again

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

d.brin wrote:
>
> Seems I'll be on the telly again.  The two-hour special "First
> Apocalypse" aka "What Really Killed the Dinosaurs" is scheduled to
> air on Wednesday, January 07 @ 09:00 PM on History (please check your
> local listing)
>
So, they also dropped the marijuana-AFT there too? Here in Brazil
it was "THC", but now it's "History" (and not História, as it should
be in good old Portuguese).

> Happy new year, all.  And here's hoping for a revival of civilization.
>
Hmmm... Just in case you were right about the manchurian-candidate
conspiracy (right conspiracy, wrong person :-)) I will stay in a natural
anti-nuclear protective valley on 2009-01-20... What if Obama is 
brainwashed by Bush and decides to wipe out the whole 
Western Civilization? :-)

Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Experts

[William T Goodall]

On 4 Jan 2009, at 21:13, Dan M wrote:
>
> I don't differ with Tetlock's essential findings: the pronouncements  
> of most
> professional pundits in the areas of economics or geopolitics are  
> less than
> worthless.  I've seen separate documentation that, if you use a  
> broker, you
> will, on average, do slightly worse than simply investing in a broad  
> based
> index fund.

Since fund managers charge hefty fees and perform no better than  
chance on average a simple tracker is bound to do better.
>
>
> However, having said that, I think that the implications of his work  
> might
> lead one to overstate the case; to state that there is no worth in  
> studying
> or trying to understand finance or geopolitics.  The former has been  
> argued
> extensively here, so let me go to the latter.



What kind of 'expert' can make predictions no better than a coin toss?  
It seems despite their jargon and ability to 'explain' things with  
hindsight that their knowledge is akin to astrology or Freudian  
analysis.

It seems to me that a lot of very smart people are rationalising their  
belief in the modern equivalent of alchemy. Which Isaac Newton wasted  
a lot of time on in his day. And lost his shirt in the Tulip bubble.

Imaginary Patterns Maru

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"I embraced OS X as soon as it was available and have never looked  
back." - Neal Stephenson

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Rceeberger]

On 1/5/2009 12:26:56 PM, Bruce Bostwick (lihan161...@sbcglobal.net) wrote:
> Probably true, but
> don't let the Canadians hear you say that .. :D ..
> "Hey, you, down in the States, take off, eh?!  Hoser!"
> 
> (Bit of a sensitive subject up there, I hear.)
> 
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Dan M wrote:
> 
> > I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of the
> > population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of
> > Duluth MN, where I grew up).
> 

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/

xponent
For Spice Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 08:36 AM Monday 1/5/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
>On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote:
>
> > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction?
> >
> > Dan M.
>
>I guess part of my cynicism is frustration at having had to live in
>the wake of the Boomers most of my life, and survive on the scraps
>they missed, when it seems the only response to my getting closer to
>actually joining the middle class



What do you consider as the criterion for "actually joining the middle class"?



>and becoming financially stable is
>the goalposts moving farther away just when I think I'm about to get
>there.



What specifically do you mean here?



>The tail end of that curve is not a happy place, and when the
>idea of having a financial cushion of savings and investments to
>soften the blow when things flame out is sort of a cruel sadistic
>taunt, the prospect of having the whole system collapse and render any
>of my efforts moot seems like a final indignity



Such things are always a possibility for just about 
anyone.  Regardless of the economy, what would you do if frex you 
were injured or became ill and couldn't work, at least for the 
foreseeable future?  Even if your medical problem is one that clearly 
qualified for disability, it is often a minimum of six months before 
you can start to qualify for disability, and it can take a couple of 
years or more to go through the process.  Few people have enough to 
live on for that long (not to mention any medical bills not covered 
by insurance) without any outside help from family members, church or 
other charities, etc.



>  .. and it leaves me in
>a rather cynical mood.  I'd like to be more optimistic, but I'm at the
>trailing edge of the herd and the wolves are a lot closer to me than
>to some of the people with the "let them eat cake" attitudes about
>cashing in a few stock options to pay the bills for a few years.  It's
>very much on my mind these days.




. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 08:30 AM Monday 1/5/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
>On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote:
>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-
> >> boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> >> Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:49 PM
> >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> >>
> >> On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>
>  From the Wall Street Journal:
> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
> >>>
>  As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of
>  U.S.
>  In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America
>  'Disintegrates' in 2010
> >>>
> >>> I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it.  It
> >>> shows
> >>> than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how
> >>> things
> >>> work in other countries. :-)
> >>>
> >>> Dan M.
> >>
> >> Well, one element of it is almost certainly true -- the USA that
> >> we'll
> >> be living in in 2010 will not be the USA as we know it. If we
> >> continue
> >> with "business as usual", the mostly-completed process of running the
> >> country into the ground will very likely reach a point of no return
> >> before then
> >
> > Ah, I'd really like some hard data to support that hyperbola.  As
> > messed up
> > as Bush was, by most measure, the US is far better off than most
> > countries.
> > Take, for example, one I worry about the most: foreign debt as a
> > percentage
> > of GDP.  It is now, by my rough calculations for 2008, at about 45%
> > of GDP.
> > While I think this is bad, it's much better than Great Britain,
> > where it
> > stands at 380%.
> >
> > If you are over 40, you should remember how Japan was going to blow
> > the US
> > out of the water in the '80s.  China is the new champonly they are
> > finding their growth is sliding from 10% per year down to a far
> > lower level
> > that folks are guessing at.  We know industrial output is down from
> > last
> > year, so they have as much trouble with the trade imbalance as we do.
> >
> > The US is far less densely populated than any other developed
> > country, its
> > air and water suppliers are far less polluted than 40 years ago, and
> > racism
> > has fallen to the point where we've been able to elect a black
> > president.
> >
> > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction?



(See note below after you read to the bottom.¹)



> >
> > Dan M.
>
>With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum,
>which is finite.  We've been migrating from a production-based economy
>to a service-based economy by degrees since the Bush I era,



I heard people making the same claim (that we 
were moving — or indeed had already moved — to a 
primarily "service" economy) in the Carter era.



>  and we now
>manufacture very little if any of what we consume as most of our
>finished goods are manufactured in China, and the vast majority of the
>remainder are imported from other countries whose labor is far cheaper
>than ours.  Unless I'm reading the signs wrong, it definitely seems to
>me that the fire has gone out and the machinery just takes a long time
>to spool down, and this recent collapse is more symptom than root cause.
>
>I just don't see the fundamentals currently supporting anything more
>than a downhill slide into progressive collapse if the systems
>currently in place continue to operate the way they're operating now.
>As a country, in aggregate, we don't really seem to *do* anything
>these days other than buy, consume, and move money around.



Again, from the late 70s/very early 80s:

"This planet has - or rather had - a problem, 
which was this: most of the people living on it 
were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many 
solutions were suggested for this problem, but 
most of these were largely concerned with the 
movements of small green pieces of paper, which 
is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small 
green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
— Douglas Adams (1952 – 2001)



>   The few
>productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry
>springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto
>industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c
>hange into a PHEV/BEV



"peta-hecto-electron-volt/billion-electron-volt"?



>based market than they are into any real R&D or
>new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in
>value.  To me, that seems unsustainable.  Am I missing something
>here?  Some energy source that's going to inject new value into the
>system?
>
>"Good, 'cause, you know, we want to report that the country's a lot
>stranger than it was a year ago." -- Toby Ziegler


_
¹"The Greatest American Hero" aired for three 
seasons from 1981 to 1983 on 
ABC. 
( 
)  (Re

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/01/2009, at 9:41 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>> It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is.
>
>
> Even GDP per capita?  Even after figuring in purchasing power  
> parity?  Is
> your arguement that per person income is not a good financial  
> measure of
> the wealth of a country?

How that wealth is distributed is important too. If 10% of a nation is  
living in poverty and 15% don't have health cover, there's something  
wrong.
>
>> And on all those  measures, the USA is not doing well compared to  
>> other
> developed
>> nations.
>
> Well, I see you didn't include unemployment, projected workers/retiree
> ratios, productivity or any of the factors that favor the US.

US, 6.5% unemployed. Oz, 5%. The US may be up in the top echelon in  
many measures, but it's no longer top of most of the ones it was top of.

>  Health is a
> very complex subject, which I'd be glad to discuss (including the  
> fact that
> the US is paying for health advances that other developed countries  
> then
> piggy back on),

As are Aus, Japan, Germany, the UK etc. Both the discovery of  
_Helicobacter pylori_ and the development of the HPV vaccine were  
Australian.

> as is poverty.  Again, we can have a fruitful discussion on
> either topic, but the realities are very complex.

Of course they are. That's my entire point in saying GDP alone is a  
poor measure. I'm not interested in a "fruitful discussion" on those  
issues, 'cause I'm sick in bed ironically, I just wanted to make the  
point that the USA makes some tragic problems for its own citizens,  
and saying "We're number one!" through GDP masks a lot of the real  
picture.

Don't think this is just US-bashing, when it's relevant I'm just as  
scathing of the Australian government, and the UK, Cyprus, etc etc.  
Anywhere I've spent some time.

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[dsummersmi...@comcast.net]

Original Message:
-
From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:48:53 +1100
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?



On 06/01/2009, at 7:58 AM, Dan M wrote:
>>
>>> With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum,
>>> which is finite.
>
>> How does an economy grow on momentum?

>It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is.


Even GDP per capita?  Even after figuring in purchasing power parity?  Is
your arguement that per person income is not a good financial measure of
the wealth of a country?  

> It doesn't tackle the important stuff, like how many people are in  
>poverty, in jail, educated, health and so on. 

I can understand why there would be a very complex arguement as to which
country is now preferable.  But, with the borderline exception of GB, most
developed countries have been very good at decreasing potential problems by
keeping their coutries homogeneous (e.g. keeping different ethnic groups
down to small minorities).  I know my Zambian daughter Neli, who studied a
semester in Europe, sees Europe as clearly more racist than the US. The US
is dealing with the aftereffects of slavery and Jim Crow, which has hurt in
very paradoxial ways.  For example, after civil rights, a large fraction of
blacks though only Oreos studied hard in school, men didn't need to take
care of their children, etc.  My African daughters have both commented on
this.  The good news is that Obama's election is starting to change some
minds.

The US is also dealing with a massive influx of poor uneducated Hispanics
across our porous border.  In a couple of generations, they become as
likely as the next American to be well educated, out of jail, etc, but in
the short term they add considerably to the poverty rate, crime rate, etc.
I know Hispanic gangs are very dangerous around here.  


>And on all those  measures, the USA is not doing well compared to other
developed  
>nations. 

Well, I see you didn't include unemployment, projected workers/retiree
ratios, productivity or any of the factors that favor the US.  Health is a
very complex subject, which I'd be glad to discuss (including the fact that
the US is paying for health advances that other developed countries then
piggy back on), as is poverty.  Again, we can have a fruitful discussion on
either topic, but the realities are very complex. 


>That plus the astonishing debt burden left by Reagan/Bush 1  
>and then Bush 2 and it's hard to see how the US can maintain its  
>position long term.

The debt burden (as a percentage  for the US is actually lower now than in
'92.  After the stimulous package it will probably exceed that number, but
still be far lower than it was in '46.  It will be a problem, but not an
insurmountable one.

What I cannot figure out among all the people who think that the US is
about to fall from its perch and see a singular massive depression (e.g.
the US drops while every other country rises) is who's going to take over. 
Europe is getting old and will be seeing its population drop significantly
over the next 50 years, has fianancial institutions that are far more
leveraged than the US institutions as well as far less transparent. Why do
you think, after the the US had a financial crisis, that the Euro dropped
like a rock compared to the dollareven though the balance of trade
deficits of the US should have cause the opposite.  Japan is getting even
older, after sufferoing a lost decade when it was projected to overtake the
US for ecconomic dominence.  China has far more at risk than the US,
besides being far poorer.  

I realize that there is a great desire in the world to see the US get its
comeuppance.  But, while I beleived that Japan might overtake the US back
in the 80s, I don't see any candidate now.  What might be possible, if the
US growth slows down, is a non-polar worldwhich will be far more
dangerous than anything we've seen since October, '62.

Dan M.




mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/01/2009, at 7:58 AM, Dan M wrote:
>>
>> With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum,
>> which is finite.
>
> How does an economy grow on momentum?

It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is. It  
doesn't tackle the important stuff, like how many people are in  
poverty, in jail, educated, health and so on. And on all those  
measures, the USA is not doing well compared to other developed  
nations. That plus the astonishing debt burden left by Reagan/Bush 1  
and then Bush 2 and it's hard to see how the US can maintain its  
position long term.

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/01/2009, at 3:49 AM, Dan M wrote:
> Finally, I have a question for those from Oz.  My understanding is  
> that most
> of the population of Oz lives on the southern coast because the vast  
> center
> of Australia is not a great place to put a lot of people.  Is that  
> accurate?

Yep. In fact, most of Oz isn't a great place to put a lot of people.  
We're overpopulated now, in terms of water sustainability (although  
bad mismanagement is a large contributor - I want to shoot whoever  
came up with the idea of growing cotton and rice in savannah).

C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Wayne Eddy]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan M" 
To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:49 AM
Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

> They are.  In my haste in writing I was less precise than I wanted to be. 
> I
> was thinking about the major developed countries (e.g. Western Europe, the
> UK and Japan).  I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of 
> the
> population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of
> Duluth MN, where I grew up).

Western Europe isn't a country and I think you are being very condescending 
suggesting that Australia & Canada aren't major countries.  I would like to 
challenge you to find any reliable agency that makes a distinction between 
major & minor developed countries, and lists the USA on one side and 
Australia & Canada on the other.  If you absolutely must make a distinction, 
perhaps G8 countries is a better option.

> I thought that much of Australia is not suitable for high density
> populations, but I'll stand to be corrected.
> And of course, Nordic
> countries have low population densities in the far north and in the
> mountains.

> The point I was trying to make is that the US is far less populated than
> where most of the rest of the developed world lives.  For example, the 4th
> largest metropolitan area in the US (the Houston Metro Area) has the same
> population density as the whole of the UK (including the rugged NW of
> Scotland).  Vast swaths of the US have both good farm land and relatively
> low population densities (e.g. Iowa at ~50/sq. mi.)  So, there is a lot of
> room for the US to increase its population before it approaches Europe.
>
> Finally, I have a question for those from Oz.  My understanding is that 
> most
> of the population of Oz lives on the southern coast because the vast 
> center
> of Australia is not a great place to put a lot of people.  Is that 
> accurate?

Mostly true.  More people could live inland, but most (for some unknown 
reason - possibly shopping realated for about 50% of the population) prefer 
to live in the big cities, which were built on the coast. You could argue 
that urban areas should be located in arid areas so that the good farmland 
is not wasted but that is a side issue.

Regards,

Wayne

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:30 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> 
> On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote:
> 

> 
> With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum,
> which is finite.  

How does an economy grow on momentum?  

>We've been migrating from a production-based economy
> to a service-based economy by degrees since the Bush I era, and we now
> manufacture very little if any of what we consume as most of our
> finished goods are manufactured in China, 

Well, then we don't consume much in the way of finished goods.  Our imports
from China in 2008 (we don't have Nov. and Dec. in yet) will be about 275
billion dollars.  Our GDP is about 14 trillion.  So, imports from China are
only about 2% of GDP.  Medical is far higher, at 16%.

>and the vast majority of the
> remainder are imported from other countries whose labor is far cheaper
> than ours.  

There is no doubt that the era of high pay, low skill unionized work in the
USA is drawing to a close.  But, from the start of Bush I to 2007, the US
GDP grew by 67%.  Comparing with other countries, I was able to only get
long term growth until 2003...so from 1998 to 2003, the US GDP grew 53% and
Western Europe GDP grew 33%, and Japan by 28%.  Since then, I know that the
US has continued to do better from '03 to '08, but I don't have it in an
easy to get at table.  (It's the non-US countries that are hard to
quantify...the US data is always easy to get to).  

That's not coasting.  

>Unless I'm reading the signs wrong, it definitely seems to
> me that the fire has gone out and the machinery just takes a long time
> to spool down, and this recent collapse is more symptom than root cause.

I suggest that you are reading the signs wrong.  I think that your argument
depends on the economy still being founded on the same footing as they were
in the '60s.

But, if you look at the additions to the economy since the '70s, you see
that the US has done well.  In the mid-80s it was supposed to fall behind
Japan in the '90s, but it's Japan that stagnated in the '90s.  China is a
poor country that is positioned to take advantage of its cheap labor, but it
is strongly feeling the hit of the US decrease in purchasing. Factory
production _fell in Dec, after years of 10% yearly rises.

 
> I just don't see the fundamentals currently supporting anything more
> than a downhill slide into progressive collapse if the systems
> currently in place continue to operate the way they're operating now.

I think that you and virtually every economist differ on what are the
fundamentals.  One fundamental is innovation.  Another is productivity.  US
productivity has risen faster than other developed countries.  The US is
either the home or the main market for virtually all medical innovations.
Europe has made it virtually impossible for bioengineering firms to operate,
and the US is doing very well there.  Since that's the only real hope for
biofuels (e.g. algae farms producing aviation fuel), the US is well poised
to be the leader in that field.

> As a country, in aggregate, we don't really seem to *do* anything
> these days other than buy, consume, and move money around.  

Well, we don't do as much smokestack manufacturing as we had, but remember,
we consume (with the exception of energy and food) far less stuff than we
did before.  With respect to computers and associated electronics, while
Japan and the US are strongly competitive, the US is still the clear chip
leader.  Detroit is in terrible shape due to legacy costs, but its Toyota
and Honda sales that lead the drop in auto sales this December. Ford's
market share is rising, mostly at the expense of these two companies.

Finally, much of 2008's balance of trade problem is due to oil imports.
While oil costs have been volatile, they averaged about $100/barrel last
year.  That means that almost 2/3rds of the US trade deficit went to oil
imports.  If oil stays in the $50-$60 dollar range, with the slowdown, we
should see a dramatic (possibly 50%) drop in the balance of trade deficit.

Finally, if the US is in such bad shape, why has the dollar risen, and why
(with the US government about to issue another trillion in debt) are T-bill
interest rates so low?  Even the longest term bonds (30 years) offer less
than 3% interest per year.  That's the exact opposite of what one would
expect of a country that's going down the tubes.

>The few
> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry
> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto
> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c
> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or
> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in
> value.  To me, t

Brin on the telly again

[d.brin]

Seems I'll be on the telly again.  The two-hour special "First 
Apocalypse" aka "What Really Killed the Dinosaurs" is scheduled to 
air on Wednesday, January 07 @ 09:00 PM on History (please check your 
local listing)

They put an hour of my blather in the can, but you never know how 
much they'll use.

In order to see several of my recent novellas, subscribe to Universe 
Magazine... Type in coupon code EE329517B2 - which is good for $5 off 
any subscription!

Happy new year, all.  And here's hoping for a revival of civilization.

  With cordial regards,

David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Bruce Bostwick]

Probably true, but don't let the Canadians hear you say that .. :D ..  
"Hey, you, down in the States, take off, eh?!  Hoser!"

(Bit of a sensitive subject up there, I hear.)

On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Dan M wrote:

> I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of the
> population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of
> Duluth MN, where I grew up).

"Good, 'cause, you know, we want to report that the country's a lot  
stranger than it was a year ago." -- Toby Ziegler


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Irregulars question about Culture

[Richard Baker]

Dan M said:

> Anyways, I was trying to subscribe without bothering anyone.  It's  
> too bad
> that Google likes the 4 year old website.

If you found the old one at http://theculture.org/culture/faq.htm then  
you should rest assured that I've updated it with correct subscription  
and unsubscription information.

Rich
GSV Watching The Cogs Turn
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Irregulars question about Culture

[Dan M]

> No, you didn't follow the directions at all, or you followed
> fossilised ones you found on the interwebs instead of going to
> www.culturelist.org
> : try making the subject subscribe culture, and sending it to
> m...@culturelist.org
> 
> We haven't been on busstop for about 4 years-ish - certainly since a
> while before my Big Lap began.

I did the latter, the old website is what came up via two Google searches.
Now, I searched again, and both websites now come up...go figure.

Anyways, I was trying to subscribe without bothering anyone.  It's too bad
that Google likes the 4 year old website. 

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Wayne Eddy
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:23 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> 
> Surely Canada & Australia are both far less densely populated than the
> United States?

They are.  In my haste in writing I was less precise than I wanted to be.  I
was thinking about the major developed countries (e.g. Western Europe, the
UK and Japan).  I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of the
population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of
Duluth MN, where I grew up).

I thought that much of Australia is not suitable for high density
populations, but I'll stand to be corrected.  And of course, Nordic
countries have low population densities in the far north and in the
mountains.

The point I was trying to make is that the US is far less populated than
where most of the rest of the developed world lives.  For example, the 4th
largest metropolitan area in the US (the Houston Metro Area) has the same
population density as the whole of the UK (including the rugged NW of
Scotland).  Vast swaths of the US have both good farm land and relatively
low population densities (e.g. Iowa at ~50/sq. mi.)  So, there is a lot of
room for the US to increase its population before it approaches Europe.

Finally, I have a question for those from Oz.  My understanding is that most
of the population of Oz lives on the southern coast because the vast center
of Australia is not a great place to put a lot of people.  Is that accurate?

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote:

> And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction?
>
> Dan M.

I guess part of my cynicism is frustration at having had to live in  
the wake of the Boomers most of my life, and survive on the scraps  
they missed, when it seems the only response to my getting closer to  
actually joining the middle class and becoming financially stable is  
the goalposts moving farther away just when I think I'm about to get  
there.  The tail end of that curve is not a happy place, and when the  
idea of having a financial cushion of savings and investments to  
soften the blow when things flame out is sort of a cruel sadistic  
taunt, the prospect of having the whole system collapse and render any  
of my efforts moot seems like a final indignity .. and it leaves me in  
a rather cynical mood.  I'd like to be more optimistic, but I'm at the  
trailing edge of the herd and the wolves are a lot closer to me than  
to some of the people with the "let them eat cake" attitudes about  
cashing in a few stock options to pay the bills for a few years.  It's  
very much on my mind these days.

"It should be a fight! We disagree on something important and  
immediate." -- Toby Ziegler


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l- 
>> boun...@mccmedia.com] On
>> Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick
>> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:49 PM
>> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
 From the Wall Street Journal:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
>>>
 As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of
 U.S.
 In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America
 'Disintegrates' in 2010
>>>
>>> I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it.  It
>>> shows
>>> than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how
>>> things
>>> work in other countries. :-)
>>>
>>> Dan M.
>>
>> Well, one element of it is almost certainly true -- the USA that  
>> we'll
>> be living in in 2010 will not be the USA as we know it. If we  
>> continue
>> with "business as usual", the mostly-completed process of running the
>> country into the ground will very likely reach a point of no return
>> before then
>
> Ah, I'd really like some hard data to support that hyperbola.  As  
> messed up
> as Bush was, by most measure, the US is far better off than most  
> countries.
> Take, for example, one I worry about the most: foreign debt as a  
> percentage
> of GDP.  It is now, by my rough calculations for 2008, at about 45%  
> of GDP.
> While I think this is bad, it's much better than Great Britain,  
> where it
> stands at 380%.
>
> If you are over 40, you should remember how Japan was going to blow  
> the US
> out of the water in the '80s.  China is the new champonly they are
> finding their growth is sliding from 10% per year down to a far  
> lower level
> that folks are guessing at.  We know industrial output is down from  
> last
> year, so they have as much trouble with the trade imbalance as we do.
>
> The US is far less densely populated than any other developed  
> country, its
> air and water suppliers are far less polluted than 40 years ago, and  
> racism
> has fallen to the point where we've been able to elect a black  
> president.
>
> And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction?
>
> Dan M.

With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum,  
which is finite.  We've been migrating from a production-based economy  
to a service-based economy by degrees since the Bush I era, and we now  
manufacture very little if any of what we consume as most of our  
finished goods are manufactured in China, and the vast majority of the  
remainder are imported from other countries whose labor is far cheaper  
than ours.  Unless I'm reading the signs wrong, it definitely seems to  
me that the fire has gone out and the machinery just takes a long time  
to spool down, and this recent collapse is more symptom than root cause.

I just don't see the fundamentals currently supporting anything more  
than a downhill slide into progressive collapse if the systems  
currently in place continue to operate the way they're operating now.   
As a country, in aggregate, we don't really seem to *do* anything  
these days other than buy, consume, and move money around.  The few  
productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry  
springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto  
industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c  
hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or  
new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in  
value.  To me, that seems unsustainable.  Am I missing something  
here?  Some energy source that's going to inject new value into the  
system?

"Good, 'cause, you know, we want to report that the country's a lot  
stranger than it was a year ago." -- Toby Ziegler


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Charlie Bell]

On 05/01/2009, at 7:59 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote:
> Pedantic humour aside Dan's statement that "the US is far less densely
> populated than any other developed country" is plainly incorrect.

Oh yeah, blatantly. I was just being funny about the two you  
mentioned, 'cause they're very densely populated in bits...

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?

[Wayne Eddy]

- Original Message - 
From: "Charlie Bell" 
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?


>
> On 05/01/2009, at 6:22 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote:
>
>> Surely Canada & Australia are both far less densely populated than the
>> United States?
>
> He said developed country. The former of those you mentioned is a
> developed southern border, and the latter, a developed coastline...
>
> Charlie.
> (Pedantic for humour value)

Below is the list of the countries with the top 30 Human Development Index 
scores.  The countries with asterisks are less densly populated tham the 
USA.

   1.  Iceland 0.968 *
   2.  Norway 0.968 *
   3.  Canada 0.967 *
   4.  Australia 0.965 *
   5.  Ireland 0.960
   6.  Netherlands 0.958
   7.  Sweden 0.958 *
   8.  Japan 0.956
   9.  Luxembourg 0.956
  10.  Switzerland 0.955
  11.  France 0.955
  12.  Finland 0.954 *
  13.  Denmark 0.952
  14.  Austria 0.951
  15.  United States 0.950
  16.  Spain 0.949
  17.  Belgium 0.948
  18.  Greece 0.947
  19.  Italy 0.945
  20.  New Zealand 0.944 *
  21.  United Kingdom 0.942
  22.  Hong Kong 0.942
  23.  Germany 0.940
  24.  Israel 0.930
  25.  South Korea 0.928
  26.  Slovenia 0.923
  27.  Brunei 0.919
  28.  Singapore 0.918
  29.  Kuwait 0.912
  30.  Cyprus 0.912

Pedantic humour aside Dan's statement that "the US is far less densely 
populated than any other developed country" is plainly incorrect.

Regards, Wayne. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l