[extropy-chat] Panicmongering (was Psychology of investments ininfrastructure)

[spike]

________________________________________
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:53 PM
To: ExI chat list
...

Russell wrote:  Well, there was a bit more to it in this case - what I was
objecting to was the proposal that we allow fear of terrorism to dominate
our lives to the extent of dismantling much of our infrastructure...


Oh dear, I have surely overstated my case, inadvertently.  I am not
suggesting dismantling existing infrastructure.  My intent was aimed at
design of future infrastructure, specifically transportation and cities.  

I have a vision of the US containing a billion people within fifty years.
We are trying to stop them at the borders, but in the long run I see this as
futile.  So we need to triple our current everything.  My notion is to build
the newer cities on a Silicon Valley model as opposed to a New York City
model.  More land for everyone, less attractive as terrorism targets.  Of
course, when we get this continent with the populations densities I
envision, it will then be full.

Europe is also facing enormous influx of population from Africa and the
Middle East.  I can easily see its population tripling in the next fifty
years, regardless of how they try to stop the flow. 



Russell wrote:...What I'm saying is that those of us who are trained to
think in analytical and statistical terms [1] should look dispassionately at
the numbers, the hard evidence, before sounding the alarm. Do you not see
any merit in this position?


I do, but the weakness I see in this position is that statistics are based
on what has come before, and the situations I envision are future.  Every
military organization in the world hires guys to sit around and ponder
possible scenarios for attack, all of which have never happened.

For instance, we may wonder why Europe Inc. is so interested in stopping
Iran from refining nuclear fuel.  I see why Israel and the US would have
heartburn from that, but why England, France and Germany?

After your posts, I began to google around and educate myself.  The short
version of my findings are as follows.  When we try to calculate the least
expensive ways to generate power, the answer is complicated by many factors.
Coal power plants are very cheap if you make no effort to scrub the
pollutants from the smokestacks.  Nuclear power is even cheaper, if you
don't go to enormous expense to safeguard the nuclear waste that is created.
In fact, nuclear is even cheaper if you have a long line of strangers lining
up at your door to take that stuff off your hands free.  Nuclear power is
cheaper still if these strangers are actually offering to buy your
radioactive waste.  Why would they do that, I wonder?

If the world allows Iran to refine uranium, then any nation can refine
uranium, and this old planet will be awash in low level radioactive waste,
never mind nukes for now.  Do you see any dangers in dozens of poor starving
nations selling or giving away this stuff?  England and France are sitting
over there with that tunnel under the English Channel, a stunningly
expensive bit of infrastructure that they would be loathe to see getting
contaminated by all that loose rad-waste that may result if Iran is allowed
to refine yellowcake.

I recognize that this is outside the comfort zone of many here, and for this
I apologize.

spike