🚀 go-pugleaf

Okay, if my vision and "intuition" (actually based on some modeling,
although admittedly not as rigorous as I would like) are mistaken,
explain why. Obviously, I am exaggerating about the entire planet
being converted. Other factors would intervene first. That is part
of the problem. Those other factors would increase human misery.

A simple analysis of extraction costs ignores externalities. A more
complete analysis requires the examination of ALL costs in a social
and ecological context. I am not content to bear the loss of almost
all of the natural ecosystem. A few species surviving only in parks
and zoos is not good enough for me. My own vision of compact cities
does not include most of the natural ecosystem inside human habitats,
but at least they would survive outside. 

This is a values issue.

Your confidence in the increased abilities of posterity to solve their
then current problems is also mistaken. It assumes neverending tech-
nological progress and, perhaps, a fundamental improvement in human
nature. Technological progress involves the exploitation of the
opportunities made available to us by physical principles and by
situational accidents. Each line of technological development is much
like the exploitation of a high-grade ore deposit. It follows an "S"
curve, first expanding more or less exponentially and then leveling
out as diminishing returns kicks in. However, unlike ore deposits,
technological opportunities do not exist in more or less steadily
diminishing states.

Most of the progress that has occurred during the last century is the
result of improving the efficiency of conversion of energy from one
form into another by a factor of about 50, from less than 1 percent to
about 90 percent of the thermodynamic limits. Further improvements
are possible, and will be made, but not by another factor of 50.

Similarly, there are limits in computational power. The ultimate
computers will involve the use of single electrons as message
carriers and single molecular nodes as switching elements. That is
an increase in power per unit volume of about 10^9, making possible
about 10^18 NAND-gate equivalents per cubic centimeter. A lot of
power, admittedly, but I am working on some problems that could bring
even that kind of computing power to its knees.

If we look at the long history of humanity we see that they were able
to meet some kinds of challenges and were defeated by others (see
Toynbee, _A Study of History_ (Abridged)). Lacking a fundamental
change in human nature we have to anticipate that future humanity
will be defeated by the same kinds of challenges that have defeated
them in the past, with some adjustment for the increased power to
coordinate provided by tools like modern communications and computers.
What those of us who are concerned about present trends fear is
that the emerging situation will be unmanageable despite our new
tools.

Of course, human nature need not remain constant. I have seriously
proposed that we make it an urgent priority to re-engineer ourselves.
The most important application of nanotechnology (although I prefer
the term nanonics) is likely to be such human re-engineering. If
all of us were as good as the best of us now are on their good days,
we might be able to cope with the situation.

But if we were, we would adopt the kinds of measures I propose in
the natural course. :-)

---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141