At present we dont seem to have a cosmologyreflecting the need to cherish
requisite cultural variety & symbioses,
as well as biological variety.
If such a cosmology could be developed and diffused
then it would I beliecve be a crucial "critical facvtor"! ??
Gary Boyd.
At 11:00 18/01/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>Let's move on to more interesting matters: Tom Abel's alternative vision of
>Humanity 3000.
>
>Tom:
>>I, for one, found your answers to the Humanity 3000 questions to be
>>astonishing. Ditto to the reactions that you posted from colleagues for =
>>their
>>general agreement with the tone and direction of your answers, despite so=
>>me
>>nitpicking.
>>
>>One way to characterize your answers would be as =93idealist=94, which is
>>contrasted with =93materialist=94 social theory, as in the writings of
>>anthropologist Marvin Harris. In essence, you appear to believe that ide=
>>as
>>direct sociocultural trajectories--material resources and political-econo=
>>my be
>>dammed.
>
>In a way, I was also surprised that nobody made this criticism, as I had
>kind of expected it. This means that I am ready to answer your criticism.
>
>First, the statement asks for "critical factors", which I interpret as
>factors that may make a fundamental difference for the future of humanity,
>depending on how they evolve. Although physical constraints on the amount
>of energy and resources are of course very important in determining what
>will be possible and what won't, they are by definition fixed and therefore
>will not make any difference. There is no way the total amount of coal or
>oil on this planet can be changed: therefore it is not "critical" in the
>above sense. It is as if you would claim that gravity is critical factor,
>because we cannot do anything without it. But we know that gravity will
>always be there, and therefore we can ignore it in devising alternative
>scenarios for the future.
>
>So what is critical in this respect?The way we *use* these given reserves
>of resources. That use, in my view, depends on 3 critical factors: 1) the
>efficiency with which we transform resources into products or work. This
>depends mostly on science, technology, organization, knowledge, in short
>what I have called "intelligence"; 2) our motivation or stated goals to
>save/waste resources, that is, a consensual system of values; 3) a
>political system which ensures that our agreed-upon goals of saving/wasting
>resources will also be implemented on the ground, that is, that no
>individuals or groups can selfishly deviate from the agreed-upon aims, e.g.
>by burning up much more fossil fuels than their neigbors. These are exactly
>the factors I mentioned in my Humanity 3000 statement, although, mostly
>because of lack of space, I did not emphasize the resource issue.
>
>Given the current trends in these critical factors, should we be
>pessimistic about the future of resources? I believe not.
ETC. etc.