[extropy-chat] TMS

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 19, 2005, at 7:00 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Cool work!  It is not that humanity "wants to" destroy itself so much 
>> as it is simply locked into patterns that are very likely to lead to 
>> its destruction.   Whether it "wants to" or not isn't really too 
>> relevant.   The way we largely killed off nuclear power, haven't 
>> developed other alternatives sufficiently and are largely quite 
>> wasteful in the way we use fossil fuels and energy  combined with the 
>> fact of eventual Peak Oil and decline of oil production says that we 
>> are auguring in on energy without some disagreement on how fast we 
>> are doing so.    By itself the failure to fully build out some 
>> alternative to fossil fuels could bring our civilizations to ruin.    
>> At least the wars and deprivations and their offshoots would be 
>> likely to.    Of course our energy habits are just one of many 
>> patterns that could be pointed out as  quite detrimental.
>
> I think there's a certain parochialism involved with this view.
> The USA is not the be all and end all of 'our civilisation'. I can 
> certainly see the USA coming to a rather unpleasant implosive event 
> through an antitech stance. However, I do not see Europe or 
> (especially) China going that way.
>

I think this point in context is pretty irrelevant.   While China has 
some interesting stuff in the nuclear field that is being explored its 
actual building plans for nuclear power, while ambitious, are not 
sufficiently so to avoid a lot of damage from oil depletion.  We will 
see.   Parts of Europe have a fair amount of nuclear power but none 
afaik are free of being tied quite thoroughly to oil for the majority  
of their energy needs.   Also Europeans have rather infamously opposed 
some types of technology much more vehemently than in the States.

> Perhaps what we are seeing (speeded up) is the process of an empire 
> enterering its decadent phase shortly before it is suplanted by the 
> next (IMO China).
>

I have no real disagreement that the factual basis for US strength, 
other than military, is fast decaying.   But that wasn't really the 
point I was exploring.   It does have relevance when a decaying power 
has most of the world's most deadly arsenal though.  This is inherently 
a tremendously dangerous situation.  It is exacerbated by a high 
incidence, even in positions of considerable power, of religious 
fundamentalism.

> For example, the Chinese have not given up on nuclear power. Indeed, 
> they are pushing ahead at a rate that is unthinkable in the West, esp 
> with regard to designing and deploying pebble bed reactors on a ten 
> year timescale. Some projections I've seen suggest that the Chinese 
> might have as many as 300 up and running by 2030. The Chinese also do 
> not have any 'moral' qualms that can be traced to a JudeoXian outlook 
> that will hold them back when it comes to biotech, plus they have an 
> aging population as we do. Unlike us however, they are not in a 
> position to expamd their populations by importing cheap labour.
>

Not unthinkable.  There was a time when the US built out nuclear power 
at close to the same rate.  That is why I am less than impressed with 
China's actual schedule of construction relative to their present and 
projected energy needs.    China also has no moral qualms in practices 
that we would consider abhorrent.   It is a mixed bag.  I don't believe 
China is enough to be the salvation of humanity.

- samantha