"A problem we face is the ability of modern technologies (genomics, engineered crops, nanotechnology, etc.) to affect entire populations while such cascading decisions are left to the increasingly few..."
Well spoken! “I'm not clever enough to claim to have a working model of what sensible regulation of human technologies would look like” I fear those that do. “One of my daily rituals is to silently hope I'm wrong” So long as you don’t use that as a spectator’s excuse to sit by a passively wait. You sound very intelligent. I’m glad you take the time to write. “I hold the picture of a green world in which success is measured in the health of people, ecosystems, and the amount of laughter heard in communities (rather than success being measured in dollars).” I have a more warped view. I see pain and suffering as a good sign that we humans are pushing ourselves to our limits. There are starving people in the deserts of Elbonia. If we were NOT really trying, as Sam Kinison said, “THEY’D MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!” Such thoughts get me in social trouble but I don’t care because I have a sense of humor. It’s just too easy to be a happy sloth in America. We have to fight it! Ignorance truly is bliss. No pain, no gain. Les gens heureux n'ont pas d'histoire! Besides, every time we create a solution to a big problem, it soon gets taken for granted, and the next runner problem eventually evolves to warrant the same emotional level of discontent as the first problem. We never rest content on our laurels. It’s the journey of problem solving that makes us human – not so much the end solutions. Marathon runners like to run. Crossing the finish line is like finishing a chapter in a book. “I often find myself reading threads in this forum with great interest, yet not responding for fear of the reaction” Nah, put some skin in the game! The people in this forum are very good people. They are very smart and can be intimidating in their own field. But we’re all human. And outside our comfortable specialized field of study, we’re all bipedal primates with three pound brains searching for answers. Many people writing on this listserv are scientists and critical thinkers, and they respond like scientists, which is typically sincere doubt and devil’s advocates designed to show interest in or emphasize a particular point and gather more information. But it’s so much better than “one-way media”. I wish we had something of FRIAM’s quality in Phoenix. I’m happy I can live here and be a part of it. A mystic seeks out others who agree. A scientist seeks out others who disagree. SCIENTIST: So what do you think of my idea? LISTENER: I totally agree! SCIENTIST: Oh... well... gotta go, have a nice day. Hey you over there! What do you think of my idea? Besides, true scientists truly like diversity of thought. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nick Frost Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:24 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How many years left On Apr 20, 2009, at 1:37 AM, Robert Howard wrote: > “I think we will outlive every other species on the planet, even if > we have to escape it, leaving a burnt-out cinder behind. “ > > The meek shall inherit the Earth. The strong will leave. The strong will leave? While I realize that the Star Trek movie opens on May 8th, I think we're a long way from Gerard O'Neill's fantasies of mass emigration into space, which if you recall were being *seriously* debated in the 1970's. IMHO, the idea of extraterrestrial emigration also presumes a level of cultural, political, economic, and social stability that may not be present as humanity pushes the limits of increasing population and diminishing resources (while we try to develop the technology necessary to move into space). What we have are the ingredients of a recipe for conflict and not interstellar travel, unless I'm mistaken (I hope I am!). We might evolve a material culture stable enough to achieve such technologies (terraforming, intergalactic travel), we might not. Time will tell. The way things are going now, it seems pretty far fetched to me, but perhaps I'm mistaken in having an equal belief in homo sapiens capacity for self-deception and human creativity. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/02/29/segments/92437 Taking another perspective, I personally think I (we) ought to learn to live reasonably on this planet prior to exporting my dysfunction elsewhere. Do we abandon Earth like a bad marriage after contaminating it (Wall-E) or face and resolve our problems before moving out into the galaxy and beyond? One stratagem implies growth and potential maturity (personal/plural) to me, the other does not. For me the question is not so much merely "what can we achieve?, where can we go?" but "what do we become in the process?" Just because we *can* clone organisms doesn't mean we should. We act, think, and make decisions that affect all life on this planet, yet the danger of human solipsistic thinking is that I/we overlook our relationships to the rest of the planetary biology as we transform habitats and cause extinctions (Dodo, Thylacine, etc.). Agreeing with some points outlined in David Abram's book "Spell of the Sensuous", our self- concept is in part defined by perception, in no small part through relation to others (human and non-human). It seems to me that to ignore this might not constitute positive development for the individual/collective. The idea of restricting science doesn't appeal to me any more than censorship, book-burning, fascism, nor totalitarianism.....but then neither does a world of genetic caste system due to designer babies http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/designer.babies/index.html or a world run by people who seem to elevate curiosity above moral and intellectual sensibility, empathy, and common sense. What I mean by this is that I fall more in the Jaron Lanier and Bill Joy camp in terms of us risking a future dystopia (e.g. Joy's article "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_future_doesn't_need_us) than believing that the likes of Ray Kurzweil and Hugo de Garis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_de_Garis ) ought to run the world. I have met many people far smarter than I'll ever be at SFI and elsewhere, but some individuals lack a corresponding empathy, ethical sensibility, and moral compass to accompany their intellectual brilliance. A problem we face is the ability of modern technologies (genomics, engineered crops, nanotechnology, etc.) to affect entire populations while such cascading decisions are left to the increasingly few. I'm not sure this is a healthy thing as we move forward. I'm not clever enough to claim to have a working model of what sensible regulation of human technologies would look like, but it's clear to me that there are some very bright people in the world who I fear don't possess the ethical makeup to make responsible decisions that are affecting all of us (Life...not just people). One of my daily rituals is to silently hope I'm wrong...and that our future will be a bright one in which technology is applied in healthy, appropriate ways and we see a reduction in harm and increase in benefit for the biology of the planet. I hold the picture of a green world in which success is measured in the health of people, ecosystems, and the amount of laughter heard in communities (rather than success being measured in dollars). I would rather not escape leaving a burned-out cinder behind because the way I see it, if I am part of that future I may very well lose myself in the process. What interests me is that we live in a nation which nearly deifies individualism. I'm all for self-expression that doesn't harm others, but I also wonder what role self-restraint plays in growth and human development? There are more materially primitive societies on Earth where people seem healthier (Ikaria) and happier to me. For 19 years my professional identity has been that of a technologist, but I'm highly skeptical of the notions of science and technology as panaceas. I have often wondered if Bill Mollison's suggestion that we simply apply our existing knowledge wouldn't yield better results than our current obsession with marching behind more technology and convincing ourselves that it represents progress. What is progress? I return to my hope that the new definition of success will include biodiversity and a laughter meter in each community, with more footpaths and bicycles and fewer automobiles and smog. Lastly, as someone who is well-acquainted with self-doubt...I often find myself reading threads in this forum with great interest, yet not responding for fear of the reaction; but I think these are important questions....and as much questions of individual/collective human development as intergalactic travel, and I'm interested to know what more of you think about these issues? -Nick ---------------------------------------- Nicholas S. Frost 7 Avenida Vista Grande #325 Santa Fe, NM 87508 [email protected] ---------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
