X-Message-Number: 7404 From: Peter Merel <> Subject: Misc. Replies Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:26:36 +1100 (EST) Randy writes, >so who knows. maybe she's investigating cryonics via Cryonet >or sci.cryonics? Are you out there, Madonna? ;-) I defy anyone to investigate cryonics via sci.cryonics in its present state of disrepair ... -- Charles Platt wrote some flattering comments on my last few posts; flattery being rare as hen's teeth on cryonet, I should thank him. I should also, however, take issue with his description of my thoughts as "skepticism", as least in that this may imply I doubt our abilities to attain the stars; I don't doubt our ability to do this. I just also don't doubt our ability to screw it up royally. I'm not so much sceptical as interested in anticipating and preparing against the difficulties that lie before us - "cautious" might be a better word. -- Thomas Donaldson writes, >In discussing Mr. Merel's worries, I very carefully said that local >catastrophes were very likely. Desertification in Africa provides an example. >However I also went further than that: the main reason for such destruction, >when it's traced down to its heart, very often comes down to not the peasants >on the ground but the politics of their "superiors" who are restricting >them. No argument there; I've already stipulated that any human effects of global ecological mismanagement are unlikely to be felt for a generation. Africa could presently feed itself if it preferred to; my mention of the place was as part of the context of land degradation - but you may have noticed that the stat for dryland degradation in Asia, which you had described in glowing terms, was similar to that in Africa. >I have mentioned their birth control methods before. Lots of changes have >happened between now and then; and the New Guinea government, though its >not autocratic, may not be the best (though I think it's still better than >most African governments). But so far the Chimbus do not seem to be >suffering any starvation or other such classic problems --- even though >they have filled up their valleys. Hmmm. And double hmmm. New Guinea is a lush, relatively uncrowded part of the world; it's unremarkable that its inhabitants are not starving when they possess considerable natural riches. Nevertheless, ecological mismanagement is proceeding apace even in PNG - from spectacular disasters like the Ok Tedi tailings through to widespread and uncontrolled deforestation. A detailed view of the damage in this area is online at http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/lien/PNG/paper.html >I doubt very much that their problems will impact us --- unless our own >government turns equally foolish and corrupt (it takes both, one or the >other won't be enough). > >If this is a wildly optimistic, technophilic statement, then so be it. I don't know about wildly optimistic and technophilic, but I'd give it "naive". I have great admiration for the principles of the US government, but its ecological policies don't seem any wiser than those of any other. Certainly the US is a fine place to live at present, but I think it's naive to imagine that the US does not consume a lion's share of the primary resources that are derived from other parts of the world, or that consequential depletion of these resources in other parts of the world will not impact on the US. Can you explain why you feel so confident about this? Peter Merel. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7404