[extropy-chat] Forbes Magazine on Robotics

Martin Striz mstriz at gmail.com
Tue Aug 22 01:17:00 UTC 2006


On 8/21/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> >I disagree that it is /worse/.  Many things are hard until they are solved.
>
> I don't know what level I should try to explain this.  Can you tell me
> where you are in technical background?

I have a BS in biology, an MS in biology, and am currently working on
an MD.  I've taken college level physics and scored a 12 (91 - 96
percentile) on the Physical Sciences section of the MCAT.

You can be as technical as you want to be.

> >I think this can be done NOW, without transhumanist technology like
> >nano or AGI.  It takes a combination of alternative energy technology
> >AND new efficiencies so that we cut energy consumption at the same
> >time.  It should be enough to be wasteful, instead of really, really,
> >really wasteful.

I want to elaborate on the fact that cutting energy consumption should
be part of the solution, and we already have ways of doing it.  A
couple of 100 W light bulbs consume more energy than a computer
(running routine tasks) or a television, and many other home
electronic devices
(http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/appliances/index.cfm/mytopic=10040).
 Lights consume a considerable fraction of our home energy, and
fluorescent lights with the same lux consume  75% less energy (I
recently replaced some 40 W bulbs with 10 W fluorescent ones).

Replacing all our lighting with fluorescent bulbs, using energy
efficient appliances, heat pumps, etc., keeping the temperature low,
keeping lights off when not in use, driving a car with > 40 mpg (or
even > 50 mpg) fuel economy, these are all things we could do right
now to cut our total energy consumption almost in half.  We may
eventually be able to cut it 80%.

I remember a few months ago somebody pointing out that advances in
materials science will allow us to build 500 lb cars, which could
improve fuel economy to > 100 mpg.  That's great, but it's already
hard enough trying to convince people to trade their 3 ton vehicles
for 1 ton vehicles.  Good luck convincing them to buy quarter ton
vehicles.

Building the technology is only half the battle.  Winning the culture
war to get that technology adopted is the other half.  An oil/coal
shortfall may eventually force people to adopt that technology, but it
will be less painful if we start winning the meme war now.

As transhumanists, people who consider ourselves technologically
savvy, we should be on that forefront.

> > > Do you understand the EP model of wars?
> >
> >Yes, but the model that you like to tout only accounts for a
> >percentage of the variance.
>
> Ok, based on evolutionary biology (you can include memetics) explain the
> rest of the variance.

There are lots of reasons why people go to war besides an evolved
mechanism for profiteering being triggered by a blight.

[snip: predictions on the timing on Peak Oil]

> I think you are not including the rapid increase in China's consumption.

No, those predictions include the growth of China's and India's populations.

> I agree.  I see two approaches that don't contribute to the greenhouse gas
> problem and are on a scale to replace oil.  Do you see others?

Which ones are those?  I can think of many parts to the solution.

Switching to renewable energy, though much more costly now, has hidden
savings, such as decreases in smog-related incidents of disease,
decreases in the attendant health care costs, reductions in military
budgets needed to defend overseas oil interests, increased safety from
terrorist threats when we decentralize our energy infrastructure, and
the collapse of various despotic regimes when we are no longer forced
to do business with them.

Let's go.

--Martin



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list