On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I agree Jed, you are correct if humans were rational.
They are, at times. If we were not rational, civilization and
technology would not exist.
Unfortunately, a significant fraction are not rational, as can be
easily seen at all levels. When irrational people have the ability,
they always attempt to destroy. In the past, their ability was very
limited. This ability is growing.
I do not see evidence that the power irrationality is growing faster
than the power of rational people. The balance seems to be about the
same as it was in the past.
I'm not saying that the number of irrational people is changing,
although that might not be true of Congress. I'm saying the the number
who are irrational now have tools able to produce more widespread harm.
There were times in the past when irrational people held sway, and
plunged the world into disaster. The most dramatic examples were the
U.S. Civil War, WWI and WWII. I think we are much better off than we
were then. A Third World War is highly unlikely. Rationality is
winning that competition.
So far.
The likelihood of a major war is receding, and many other positive
trends continue. The Cold War ended peacefully. Democracy is
spreading.
Pollution is gradually being reduced.
Except in China and India, which is most of the world.
Out of control population growth is moderating, even in third world
countries.
The population is still growing exponentially world-wide.
Food factory technology is improving, and it could easily eliminate
the threat of famine or massive water shortages.
Apparently not so easily. Hunger is even growing in the US at the low
end of the economy.
The Internet is bringing unprecedented access to information and
education to people everywhere, even in the Third World.
True, but to what effect?
It is even possible that cold fusion will succeed. I will grant it
is a long shot, but if I thought it could never happen -- that we
will never overcome irrational opposition -- I would quit trying to
promote it.
I would not want to see that happen. Perhaps I had better shut up. :-)
I think you are unrealistic. Unwarranted pessimism is as unrealistic
as Panglossian optimism.
I agree. But what role does rational and objective observation have in
any evaluation? It seems to me, we need to identify a problem before
we can attempt to correct it. This identification always leads to what
might be called pessimism.
Ed
- Jed
