X-Message-Number: 28027 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:05 -0600 From: "Anthony ." <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #28024 - #28025 References: <> > Message #28024 > From: "egg plant" <> > Subject: RE: CryoNet #28006 - #28008 > Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:37:42 +0000 > The air and water is cleaner today than it was 10 years ago, and it was > cleaner 10 years than it was 20. I have not seen the facts you are basing your assertions on. Remediation technologies are always one step behind the pollution. Pollutants are often cumulative in their effects and they can last a long time; remediation can take a long time to finish. Global warming indicates the global effects of our ideologies. Plus, continued extinctions make it clear that we are impinging further and further into our resources. Here is just one news story about a study showin the relationship between increasinghly dirty air and lung problems: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/09/08/smog_study040908.html I am not saying that we are just years or decades from using everything up - we appear to have plenty of oil and gas, but they have unwanted side-effects and cost. I am not saying that certain problems have not been addressed, certain pollutants reduced, but overall, your assertion that air and water are cleaner today looks to be wrong. > >the world's three richest people are worth more than the > >combined resources of 36 of the world's countries. > > Then three cheers for the 3 richest people, I wish them well. You wish them even greater wellness? What do you wish for the populations of the 36 poorest countries they outweigh? > The basic > problem is not that we are dividing the pie up unfairly, the basic problem > is that the pie is too small. "The pie" is all we've got right now. Unless we use the Earth's resources more carefully, the pie is going to be even smaller. The problem is indeed the unfair distribution of resources. Do you think that the worlds 3 richest people worked harder than the populations of the 36 poorest countries? Are these people more deserving of their hard-earned/inherited/stolen wealth? Are they morally superior for being in such an enviable position? Do they owe nothing to the people they impoverish (by hording their massive resources)? Do so few people really need so much, even if they aquired it "fair and square"? Or do moral questions have nothing to do with your economics? Do innumerable human lives matter less than your economic ideology? > To bring the average world living standard up > to the level of Portugal, the poorest country in western Europe, the total > amount of wealth on planet Earth would have to quadruple. And if you want > more wealth embrace free markets. Will the free market magically re-create the finite resources we're using? I suppose it will point us in the direction of sustainable energy sources when the "free market" determines it. Unfortunately, it seems that "free market" forces aren't enough to properly manage the use of resources, and I know that without government regulation, polluting businesses would pollute even more. > I believe it is pointless to try to solve > problems that will not reach their peak until more than about 15 years from > now; Yes, much like it is "pointless" to stop smoking so you don't develop cancer later in life. Deal with the cancer when it pops up because you never know, the cancer might not happen to you. > beyond that point we will have only a hazy idea what the problems > really are Which is why we analyse current trends and take a close look at what is happening around us now. As a result, the haze gets a bit clearer. > and people in the future will have a far greater ability to solve > these problems than we do. Not if their resources are drained, and polluted, and not if their countries do not have the resources because 3 of the richest people in the world have it. > I get very impatient when environmental kooks say > we should impoverish ourselves now to help people a century from now. "Kooks"? Let's try and have a rational debate first. If you can't do that, then we'll lob insults. I am not suggesting we live impoverished, unless your definition of impoverished means "not having lots of useless stuff and creating lots of waste for the sake of quick money now". All I was originally suggesting was that rather than divert our attention with interesting scenarios about the Singularity, we should consider more carefully today's research which strongly indicates the difficulties that lay ahead for ourselves (should we be revived) and future generations. These difficulties are characterised by massive social and wealth inequality compounded by squanderous and short-sighted business practices and government policy. Of course if you believe "the Singularity is nigh" you might just prefer to go full-steam ahead in the expectation that the super-AI will clean up our mess and find nice ways of doing things. This is a similar attitude to people who believe that all we be divinely put to rights at the end of time, and that this life is only transient and of lesser importance, and the results are similar. I don't think we can bet on either eventuality, which is why I suggest cryonicists explore concepts like sustainable development, clean energies, and social welfare/wealth re-distribution. These are ways we can sustain our resources and help meet urgent human needs and thus lay a secure foundation for a better future. I remain open-minded though - you may have the facts that show me that air and water are indeed cleaner, that the free-market will result in sustainable solutions, and that it does few people any harm when massive resources are allocated to just a few individuals. Anthony Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28027