Hi Alan >In fact, I'd say we probably agree more than we disagree, >and likely much more.
I'm sure of that. :-) >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Uh-huh Allan >> >> However many people it might be, many of them would probably say as you >> do, No problem, we can do both things at the same time, plenty of brains >> to go round and so on. But I doubt it'd be more than just lip service, >> they don't really see it that way, > >I can't speak for all of them, but the ones I personally know _do_ see >it that way. > >The way they, and I, see it, it's best for each person to work where his >passion is. If it's your passion to go to the moon, Mars, and beyond, >then work on it. If it's your passion to teach people in the third >world to lift themselves out of poverty then work on it. Let each >person work where his passion, education, and calling lead him. _That_ >is why I say there are brains enough to go around. It doesn't need brains, the brainwork's done already, it needs will. It's not good enough to do both things at the same time. One of them is a hell of a lot more important and pressing than the other, by any moral or ethical measure, in a world of plenty where we've recently had to agree here that genocides are a dime a dozen, just business as usual, and it's been that way for a hundred years, while we got rich through "accumulation by dispossession", whether we like to admit it or not. That has to be dealt with *first*, it's an absolute priority. And in these days where everything's connected to everything else, if it's not treated as a priority we aren't going to have a future, because all other options turn out to be non-sustainable. The same solution(s) to many problems. It doesn't matter too much what people's passions might be if it's going to mean neglecting their obligations, and this is certainly an obligation. Our freedom and our ability to pursue our passions would be all jolly nice if it didn't depend on depriving other people of their ability to feed their children. It's not a question of giving, it's a question of giving back, and not at our convenience, but NOW. >> ...and if there is a Mars trip it will be >> more money and resources thrown away, the real problems won't be solved >> nor even confronted, at least not by them. > >Perhaps not by them specifically, but certainly by other people of equal >intelligence and passion. Not very relevant, most people are intelligent and most can be passionate. Commitment is relevant. >> I wonder if any of those problems were mentioned at the SF confab you went >> to. They should have been, they're not absent from the literature. > >Yes they were. The Heinlein Centennial was a celebration of the life >and works of Robert A. Heinlein on what would have been his 100th >birthday. One of the ideas that RAH was a big supporter of is "Pay It >Forward". > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward > >Heinlein himself wrote that it is not simply ability, but the >responsibility of fortunate people to help less fortunate people. Right then, let's start from there eh? Among other things. But I reject the idea that it's a matter of being fortunate or less-fortunate, unless you could describe predators as fortunate and the prey as less fortunate, which would be a distorted view. >>> I disagree, Keith. I don't think it has to be an either-or thing or a >>> first-then-later thing. I think both can be done at the same time. In >>> fact I think both _must_ be done at the same time. >> >> Any plans for promoting that idea among the 400 SF PhDs or the "quite a >> lot of us" who're bent on going to Mars? Or is that it, just as long as >> somebody says so? > >A number of them are actively working on both ends of the equation. >Peter Diamandis among them. > >http://www.xprize.org/x-prizes/future-x-prizes Yes, well, but it doesn't need any more prizes or incentives or studies or thinking or discussion, we know all that already. It needs doing. >>>> ... ï ONE-FIFTH are undernourished >>> I understand that, and I'm not saying it isn't a problem. It is. >> >> You didn't say it's not a problem and you didn't say it is, I doubt it >> entered your thinking on going to Mars, did it? > >Specifically on the subject of Mars, no. I was thinking about going to >Mars. But I am not one-dimensional. There are other parts of my mind >devoted to helping the less fortunate lift themselves out of poverty. Again, I don't see them as less fortunate but as people we've deprived and dispossessed and to whom we're heavily indebted. It's not that we should help them, they don't need help, what they need is empowerment, or re-empowerment, or un-disempowerment, the means to community self-reliance, which nearly all of them had before we happened along. An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about: - 3 to 1 in 1820 - 11 to 1 in 1913 - 35 to 1 in 1950 - 44 to 1 in 1973 - 72 to 1 in 1992 And even further now. >Things like microloans: > >http://www.kiva.org/ Among other things. >> Currently the future of man and space isn't exploration, it's exploitation >> and militarisation, and there's probably not much chance that will change >> any time soon. > >Perhaps. IMHO, there can be no exploitation without prior exploration. No, but exploitation is way behind exploration, and the way things are it's the exploitation of what's already been explored that will take priority over further exploration. >The real trick is to make exploration of the Moon, Mars, and Beyond self >supporting, so that it doesn't have to keep sucking money out of the >world economy at all, and preferably so that it adds money to the world >economy. ... where with economic growth of $100 the rich 20% of the world population pocket $83 and the poorest 20% get $1.40. According to the stats, that is, but in fact most of the poorest 20% don't get anything, they lose, or lose heavily, or just starve to death, along with their children. That's why they breed more - more births raises the chances that some might survive. Then rich white folks say it's their overbreeding that's causing the hunger and poverty. However, over the past 35 years, global per capita food production has outstripped population growth by 16%. We now have more food per person available on this planet than ever before in human history. There's also more money and wealth than there's ever been before, but most countries are poorer now: 80 countries have less revenue than they did a decade ago, while the assets of the world's 200 richest people now exceed the combined income of 41% of the world's total population. And half the population is poor, and one in six goes hungry. So maybe the world economy isn't the ideal thing to add money to if you're serious about eradicating poverty, that will only help increase the poverty. So much for helping the less fortunate? >When it comes to the militarization of space, it's been militarized for >decades, the real question is who holds the high ground? I'd rather not >cede the high ground to someone I don't like. Anybody who holds the high ground in the militarization of space is bound to be somebody you shouldn't like. >> Please don't think I'm being hidebound or whatever about this. Never mind >> whose is bigger, but I doubt you've read more science fiction than I have, > >Indeed. I am interested to know what you like to read. Perhaps I can >read some of it so I can understand you better. :-) FWIW. You can probably get a better idea of that right here, and at the Journey to Forever website. >> ...and published it too. > >You've published SF? Now _that_ I'd definitely be interested in >reading! I've found you can get a very interesting insight into how a >person's mind works by the way they write _fiction_ better than just >about any other way. Of course I love fiction when other people write it, but when it comes to writing it myself it always seems a bit superfluous, reality's quite unreal enough as it is, so I tend to stick to journalism. I have written some SF though, bits and pieces scattered about the place, like this bit, circa 1995, I suppose it's SF, not typical, but none of it's typical: http://journeytoforever.org/keith/MMT/keith_harrods.html Harrods to Sell Elixir-of-Life It was a little strange to see whole new waves of kids succumbing to various diseases of senility after that. >> There's more to it than the clarke-ian view, that's >> just the same tired old 1950s suburban Reader's Digest ... > >/Astounding!/, actually. It's now known as /Analog/, and I'm a >subscriber. I know about them, but I was referring to 1950s suburban Reader's Digest-style values, the ref to PSM covered the techie side of it. >> ...and can-do Popular >> Science mag utopianism still staggering about like the Undead in a new >> host body. > >Not really. It's still alive an well in the science journals. It never >died, it just got reduced to a core of true believers. I think all we're arguing about is whether zombies are dead or not, we know they can walk about and do stuff. It "lives" on: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=Planktos&[EMAIL PROTECTED] And so on. Chip said earlier: >Hey, I *like* the 50s PSM utopianism ! >I'm still angry we've dropped those overly simplistic models >from consideration. A lot of them made a lot of sense. I grew >up on that stuff, and still want it. Or at least, I'd like to >see it so I could be against it :) Yes! LOL! I like it too, some of it, but for me the big problem with it is that so much of it ends up being inhuman, partly at least because that kind of fascination with technology, or worship of it even, tends to regard biology and the biosphere as just stuff you can brush aside, or at most it can be useful once it's had the benefit of a little human ingenuity to improve it. It's heroic technology, like heroic surgery: "The operation was successful, but the patient died." >> Unless you still think technological might is Progress, but the >> myth of Progress was debunked more than 30 years ago, and the failure of >> the whole Modernism project acknowledged. (And then came neo-liberal >> economics... and just look what can-do did.) > >Ergh. The Reagan years. A bit before that, and since. Straussianism with Friedmanesque characteristics maybe. :-) Naomi Klein charts the course pretty well. >And we have some of this election cycle's >candidates who crow about being "Ronald Reagan Republicans". Yeah. >Right. That's _all_ we need. No thank you. Unfortunately, the >Democrats aren't offering much better. I guess that's Progress. I don't see why the Other Business Party should be expected to do any better. >> You can find the sources for the stats at our website. It needs some >> updating, it's worse than that now, lots worse in some cases, though the >> data is only a few years old. >> >> http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html >> Community development - poverty and hunger: Journey to Forever > >Keith, among many other things you are an excellent journalist. Why thankyou Alan! You made me blush! >While we stand on opposite sides of the Space issue, we agree on most >other things. I'm not sure we're really on opposite sides of it. I think we're looking at it from different points of view, but they're probably compatible, different parts of the same overall picture. >In fact, I'd say we probably agree more than we disagree, >and likely much more. > > > Best. > >The best back to you, Keith. Midori as well, and holiday well wishes to >both of you. Thanks again Alan, and the same to you. Regards Keith >AP _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
