[ExI] Lack of interest

[hkhenson]

At 08:44 PM 5/17/2008, you wrote:
>I'm keenly interested in any proposals you might have, I've been 
>getting anxious about the peak oil issue myself.  I think either we 
>need to rethink things at drastic levels, or we're going back to the 
>horse and buggy age, at least those who survive.
>
>I'm no engineer, but if you say that orbital solar power stations 
>will work, that sounds great.  I don't really have the time or the 
>education to follow you on most points,

There is no question about them working.  They are based on simple 
engineering that has many decades of experience.

>but I think the main question is: who would be willing to fund such 
>a project?

The first thing is to show the project has a reasonable ROI and a 
rapid repayment of energy invested in it.  The second is reasonable, 
the first is going to take some serious thinking.

>You're basically talking about something with high investment costs 
>on an unproven technology.

On a scale of the Iraq war.

>But it sounds like a great idea, as long as you don't burn any 
>buildings down by missing the receptor site.

The original design uses low density microwaves that can't be focused 
sharper because of fundamental optics limits.

>But, I think transitioning to a post-oil economy is going to require 
>efforts on all fronts, because we know that many of the strategies 
>won't work out for one reason or another.  Algae oil is something 
>that I've been hearing a lot about; it's something that's being 
>researched and they say that there's quite a bit of potential 
>there.  I'm speaking out of complete ignorance here so help me: but 
>is this something that synthetic biology can at all contribute with?

Possibly.  But the low efficiency means you tie up vast areas with 
glassed over waterways.

>Okay, ignore this post if it's all hogwash, I'm just starting to get 
>a grasp of things.  But the main point of this is just to show that 
>at least I am interested, and I think it's something that we should 
>all be interested in.  Transhumanists, of all people, are the ones 
>who are the most optimistic about technology.  We're the ones who 
>watch an episode of Star Trek and, instead of laughing it off, 
>wonder how it can be done.
>
>And I don't know if anyone has been listening to the peak oil 
>people, but this is something that primitivists are realling sinking 
>their claws into; this is their proof in the pudding about how evil 
>technology is, and how evil mankind has become with it.  So I don't 
>know what unsettles me more: the drastic die off, the crash in 
>standards of living, the return to agriculture and the elimination 
>of virtually all powered devices; or proving *them* right, as 
>childish as it sounds.  I don't think our fate is necessarily 
>sealed, but I don't want future humanity looking back at the 
>industrial-technological age as a *mistake*.
>
>And they would never know whether everything could have been 
>different if we had just a little more fortitude, were a little more 
>unified, were a little less risk adverse, were just a little 
>brighter; that is, a little more than human when it really counted.

Yeah, all of those.

I hate to say it, but when it comes down to choices, there are going 
to be some really hard ones.  Since a substantial number of cultures 
don't limit the number of children they have, one way or the other 
those populations will be cut back, by famines, wars or 
epidemics.  Take your choice.

Of course in the middle of all this we can expect to see the 
singularity.  Will that be a blessing or simply kill off the remainer?

Did you read my clinic seed short story?

Keith