X-Message-Number: 32361 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: Organic progress model versus the Drunkard's Walk Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:44:47 +0100 References: <> On 3 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > The Obama Administration's relinquishment of manned space travel, a > key component in the progress mythology from way back, suggests that > the drunkard's walk better fits the data than the organic model. Human > civilization has no more inherent reason to keep building rockets and > sending men into orbit than it had to keep building pyramids. Ultimately, the survival of the human race depends on getting off this Planet. However, since that problem is, hopefully, far in the future, we can't expect it to have much political effect. In general, scientific progress continues according to the number of scientists and their level of funding, to a lesser degree. However, technological progress is often triggered by political events. For example, WWII led to a tremendous jump in technology with radar, the atom bomb, etc. The Space Race was triggered by the Soviet Union's launch of the first satellite. If the SU had announce they were going to put a man on mars, there would probably be people there today. Likewise, space colonies were feasible in the 1970s and if there had been some political push, millions could be living in orbit today. There is no way that nuclear energy is going to be forgotten. Bertrand Russel commented that these weapons would have to be kept safe until the Sun grew cold. So, there is a rachet effect with some technologies and that eliminates any random walk model. Cosmism asserts that there is a teleological imperative inherent in intelligent civilization, which will propel the exploration of the Cosmos. http://www.cosmism.info/what-is-cosmism > > The drunkard's walk model also seems to fit the history of cryonics > better than the organic model. It wouldn't surprise me if cryonics > organizations start to lose members and even fail for financial > reasons in the next couple decades, independently of the merit of the > cryonics idea. Why? Human civilization has no acorn-like imperative to > want to conquer aging and death, either A biological analogy is often used in social/organizational analyses, but it isn't appropriate. There is a literature on social movements that could be applied. There has been an increase in life expectancy of a quarter a year per year for over two hundred years. Trends like this usually continue. In any case, there is an incentive to retard aging, and vast sums are being spent to look younger right now. No doubt, when the technology to retard aging comes online, there will be plenty of takers and plenty of funding to make improvements. With respect to the cryonics enterprise, the main problem appears to be that a formula that has shown success will continue to be used long after it has outlived its role. To someone working at a cryonics provider, a steady stream of new suspendees will not be seen as a problem, even though this represents a declining growth rate with respect to the size of the organization. This can lead to unwarranted complacency. To overcome political risk, the cryonics movement has to make the transition from a type of separatist subculture only understood by insiders, to a movement that is accepted as a routine part the mainstream culture. If this doesn't happen, then there is a risk of decline, internal disruption, or repression by the mainstream. According to the standard models of social movements, cryonics has already passed thru the preliminary stages of emergence, coalescence, and bureaucratization (at least preliminary). If these theories apply, then we are at the point where the future of cryonics will be decided. According to these models, the transformation will be revolutionary, so the risk should not be underestimated (see my earlier CryoNet message, "Decline of the Soul's Immortality: A Danish history," to get an idea of what the last transition of this type was like): http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Social_Movements dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32361