[extropy-chat] Bioeconomics was Why I'm Not Libertarian...

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 29 03:19:38 UTC 2005



--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> >      Precisely. Which is why I propose a merging
> of
> > memes from economics, biology, and ecology into
> the
> > new fields of bioeconomics and bioergonomic
> > engineering. They are designed to study and
> achieve
> > healthy biological growth of the total world
> economy
> > in the context of a sustainable life-promoting
> > enviroment.
> 
> So the first question would be worthy you know what
> "healthy  
> biological growth" looks like as the
> scientific/technological ground  
> and fundamental possibilities change rapidly
> underfoot.  What kind of  
> life?

After many years of observation and experiment, in
organisms it is quite obvious what constitutes healthy
biological growth. If the doubling of the weight of a
mouse consists entirely of one type of cell, then it
is very clearly unhealthy. The mouse has cancer or is
obese or something. Whereas if a laboratory mouse
doubles it weight yet the proportions of all the cells
are of the right ratios, it is clearly healthy
biological growth. Your point that these indicators of
health are not as clear cut in economic entities
whether they be companies or countries is well taken.
But what I am proposing is a brand new field that will
take several years of serious research in order to
perfect and to implement. But I do not think that such
a task would be intractable to the scientific method. 



> What I propose, instead is a rational
> rationing
> > of natural resources in such a way that we can
> grow
> > our economy and our species in a healthy
> sustainable
> > manner to the point that we can shape our world
> into a
> > tropical paradise, instead of a toxin strewn
> boneyard.
> 
> I too want to see this world turned into a paradise.
>  But I don't  
> think it will happen by focusing on rationing what
> we now have a  
> limited supply of.

Yes, perhaps rationing was a poor choice of words.
More precisely what I am trying to communicate is a
need to develop a system that maximizes efficiency in
the usage of natural resources, which will in turn
stretch out those limited resources long enough to
develop the radically new technologies that will
eventually increase supply. In other words, we need to
pace ourselves for a marathon of uncertain length and
not sprint off the starting line hoping to break the
tape before we run out of breath.   

> I think it far more likely to
> concentrate on  
> creating more supply and on those things that
> increase rather than  
> decrease with use.  But perhaps there is some
> temporary need in some  
> areas.

Yes, what I am proposing will buy us time to find
those things which will allow us to do precisely that.

> So where are these and how does rationing
> them make it more  
> likely we come to inhabit the type of world we wish?


Well the most limited resources facing our economic
growth currently are fossil fuels and arable land. And
these two things are very inter-twined, in the sense
that modern farming is nigh impossible without the
usage of equipment powered by fossil fuels. In a
certain sense, modern farming consists of using arable
land to convert fossil fuel into food through the
mechanically inefficient process of internal
combustion.
Potential measures to increase the efficiency of this
process include:

1. Increased usage of multiculture instead of
monoculture to maximize produce per acre.

2. Direct synthesizing of food stuffs (i.e. proteins,
carbs, etc) from the organic material in petroleum.

3. Further development and usage of alcohol,
biodiesel, solar, solar-chemical, nuclear, and
bioreactors (especially the one I have in mind... of
course I can't explain it without a non-disclosure
agreement) as alternative energy sources to petroleum
combustion.

4. Increased use of aquaculture to add arable seas to
arable land. Yes I know algae and seaweed don't sound
too appetizing, but they make for great biodiesel.

5. Beyond simple food production, I think society
needs to organize industry better. Instead of mergers
between different big competing companies into
monopolies, tax incentives should be given to
collaboration and mergers between companies that are
vertically connected on the supply chain of various
industries. Ideally, these supply chains should be
developed into closed cyclical structures, like the
various cycles of nature such as metabolism, the
carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, etc. In my vision,
the industrial waste from one company forms the raw
materials of another company, and so on, until the
waste product of the final company regenerates the raw
materials of the first company. This will be tricky I
know, but if it can be pulled off, it will make the
economy as efficent as nature.  

> > All the while, maximizing personal gain for the
> > well-being of as many people as possible in a
> > meritocratic fashion.
> >
> 
> Sounds good.  Does the program uplift all?

Well it would increase their quality of life: less
hunger, less asthma, less cancer. It might not make
everyone rich but it will increase opportunities to
become rich across the board.

> 
> >      If we achieve sufficent growth, we may be
> able to
> > colonize other worlds. If not, we will choke to
> death
> > ourselves and our entire local food chain of
> > ecological niches including many other large
> > vertabrates.
> 
> Or we may change in unimaginable ways.  Or with MNT
> covering our  
> material needs may be quite ecnomical and
> environmentally friendly to  
> boot.  The same technology starts undoing
> environmental harm.

Yeah I suppose we could all upload ourselves into
stainless steel android bodies so that we can survive
the toxic waste generated by our none-too-wise meat,
but that isn't going to help the bald eagle very much.
Nor would it be paradise by any criteria of mine.


> >      The environment of course will still function
> at
> > some level but what will populate the planet when
> it's
> > healed itself in a few million years is anybody's
> > guess. Perhaps the sentient descendents of the
> > cockroaches.
> >
> 
> Where are you going?

To the stars. But first to paraphrase Lewis Carrol,
"It will take all the running we can do to just to
stay in place." As far as the cockroaches, I was just
throwing that in for color. My point is simply that I
am not saying that blind consumer-driven capitalism
will destroy the world, just the part of the world
that is at all useful to us. I know these ideas are
rough and may take much work on my part to develop
into real disciplines but at least I have kind of told
you all where my mind is heading.
 


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list