I’d be lying to say that I was optimistic most of the time, but I suspect we underestimate what we, as a species could achieve. I often think of the period during the second world war. In less than a decade the world completely changed technologically and scientifically. Enormous advances in electronics, aeronautics, mechanics, nuclear physics, etc. The world in 1946 would have been inconceivable to someone living a decade earlier.
The great tragedy is that it took a world war with many millions of casualties to create the impetus, and it can be argued that sociologically the rate of change was not great, but that doesn’t negate the technological advances. It’s hard to imagine what the human race could achieve if we could only find the right motivation. It would be nice if it wasn’t another war…..
Yeah, unfortunately war does seem to be the great motivator of technological innovation. Maybe in the future hunger and a desire for reliable air conditioning will drive innovation.
Yeah, unfortunately war does seem to be the great motivator of technological innovation. Maybe in the future hunger and a desire for reliable air conditioning will drive innovation.
Damn, I hope so. Gotta have my food and air conditioning. It’s humid as hell here after the great storm. Power in our area is still knocked out and ice has all but disappeared!
Maybe we should just have Cold Wars, as we seem to need wars to afford some things that we could not otherwise justify the money for. Cold wars do not have as much of the downside of actual violent wars.
But re: the video - lofty aspirations and vision are a good thing.
I always seem to come back to the exponential function.
Wars and disease are bad but good for the problem of overpopulation. Peace and health are good, but bad for the problem of overpopulation.
As professor Al Bartlett demonstrates, you cannot have it both ways. It is the single greatest moral dilemma of mankind.
I always seem to come back to the exponential function.
Wars and disease are bad but good for the problem of overpopulation. Peace and health are good, but bad for the problem of overpopulation.
As professor Al Bartlett demonstrates, you cannot have it both ways. It is the single greatest moral dilemma of mankind.
Overpopulation could be dealt with over time, simply by decreasing the birth rate. No war needed. A massive worldwide plague that only killed off human sperm, with no other adverse health effects, could do the trick. Any mad scientists out there?
I always seem to come back to the exponential function.
Wars and disease are bad but good for the problem of overpopulation. Peace and health are good, but bad for the problem of overpopulation.
As professor Al Bartlett demonstrates, you cannot have it both ways. It is the single greatest moral dilemma of mankind.
Overpopulation could be dealt with over time, simply by decreasing the birth rate. No war needed. A massive worldwide plague that only killed off human sperm, with no other adverse health effects, could do the trick. Any mad scientists out there?
IMO, that would not work. The population needs to be replenished with young and vigorous offspring. That is the problem with the exponential function. Even at 1% steady increase in population we will have a doubling of population in 70 years (a single generation). http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html
I always seem to come back to the exponential function.
Wars and disease are bad but good for the problem of overpopulation. Peace and health are good, but bad for the problem of overpopulation.
As professor Al Bartlett demonstrates, you cannot have it both ways. It is the single greatest moral dilemma of mankind.
Overpopulation could be dealt with over time, simply by decreasing the birth rate. No war needed. A massive worldwide plague that only killed off human sperm, with no other adverse health effects, could do the trick. Any mad scientists out there?
IMO, that would not work. The population needs to be replenished with young and vigorous offspring. That is the problem with the exponential function. Even at 1% steady increase in population we will have a doubling of population in 70 years (a single generation). http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html
If we had a steady 1% decrease in new births, would the population be halved in 70 years? If so, would that be too much, too quickly? Are we addicted to an ever increasing population?
I’m not a mathematician, but IMO, a negative birth rate would result in a disproportionate distribution of aged and infirm people. Especially if we continue to find ways to extend life. Now, if we could find a “fountain of youth” and keep people “young” instead of “old and alive”, that would be something.
We do have an example in China, which mandates birth control. I am not sure if it is effective though. Time will tell.
I believe it was George who proposed that gradual decline is not likely. The drastic and sudden death of large numbers across the age spectrum due to a calamity is more likely and would not interfere with the fundamental natural function of procreation maintaining a natural balance of active youth and passive wisdom.
