Okay Gene, I'm going give this one more shot before I put it to bed. It appears we are dealing with two points of views here; mine being generalized, in a more broad encompassment, yours being a more focused individual viewpoint. I was looking at it, from a more out-worlder observation. From that view, one would see us as a single race having the same basic physical structures with the exception of the difference between males and females. Barring the different ethnicities, languages, or personal religious beliefs, skin color, and/or their geographical origins, would likely be considered variants on the same scheme. Bipedal, toolmaker, social, with logic driven adaptability's.

As far as who makes the decisions that I had suggested toward the first of our discussions. Well, to me logic would suggest a consensus of some sort. This way humans would be able to maintain their individuality, individual faiths, individual languages, territorial governments to counterbalance the world government, and so forth. I was speaking in g-e-n-e-r-a-l-i-z-e-d terms, simply because I don't have the answers to the individual questions or problems that such an undertaking would involve. If I had those answers to give to you, I would with enormous gratification, knowing I had the solution to all the world's problems. But anyone reading this would become a meet in the aware that this subject matter is way over my head. Probably why I spouted it out the other end with such an erroneous smell.

If she'll be so many pitfalls to the viewpoint of my opinion, you have unwittingly bought a curse upon yourself. I say this, because these are many of the problems, the characters in my book will face near the end of the book. And in writing that part, I will need to hire a sharp shooting gunslinger, they willing and able to plug it full holes. And I fully intend to nag you into becoming my sounding board for that particular part of the story.

Sorry, my friend - but you brought it on yourself.

Rex
_____________________________________________________
Howard Johnson wrote:

I see the beaver dam story as applying to government officials attorneys and politicians of all persuasions. I see it as a common disease of constantly growing government regardless of the party in power. Officialdom breeds redundant, self expanding activities - all officialdom. It's the nature of the beast.

Here, we completely agree. Not that it's necessarily evil -- but it is infamously self-sustaining.
Also, In my opinion, climate change is a minor threat to mankind.

But it was the first two of your "threats of society" topics.

What do you want us to do -- destroy India and Africa? And any other third world populations that might be over a number we don't like? You're certainly not talking about Europe or the US.

We've seen that as the technological level of a civilization rises, its population growth curbs. The correlation is excellent, and well supported. But people are horrified at the idea of making these populations more like the US -- why, the US is "greedy"!

The real correlation appears to be literacy and birth rate, with some odd data points presented by some Muslim countries. High literacy = good! For the planet, certainly, if you feel that population is the big threat.

There are problems, of course. We lack the will in the US to pursue solar power satellites; these would end current concerns about global warming, fossil fuels, pollution from the oil industry, drilling operations, et cetera -- and we'd have to come up with new things to worry about.

We could supply energy and technology cheaply to third world countries; to some, this WOULD be terrible!

No matter how you count it, the population explosion which aggravates: decimation of the environment, destruction of wild food sources, deforestation and soil depletion, along with numerous other negative factors, is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced and no one wants to talk about it.

Perhaps that's why these secret topics are merely whispered in billions of words and pictures in movies and television documentaries and front pages of major magazines and newspapers and science journals and talk shows and coffee houses. Oh, and science fiction novels.

Interestingly, while glancing around at the 770,000 Google hits on the threat no one wants to talk about, I encountered this:
Click Here! Futurist

That matches my understanding reasonably well. What do you think?

===|==============/ D. Keith Howington
_____________________________________________________
8-14-06 - Keith:

Yes, education and affluence seems to moderate population growth, but even in the article you sighted, written in 2000, (and which I read, thank you) a world population of about 8 billion is mentioned as a realistic ceiling to be reached in 2030. Does anyone seriously believe this is a realistic, sustainable level considering the headlong drive of third world nations like China and India to enjoy first world lifestyles for their people? If you think we are having a shortage of petro-products now, just watch as those two giants continue to ramp up their consumption.

What I believe we need to do is certainly NOT "-- destroy India and Africa? And any other third world populations that might be over a number we don't like?" That’s the Muslim fundamentalist goal – kill everyone who disagrees with them. Most thinking peoples of the world would abhor such a policy and certainly not support it.

My "and no one wants to talk about it." comment may be off the mark as you pointed out, but it reflects reactions I get repeatedly to my lecture on population and to several talk radio shows I have contacted. In contrast, have no problem getting an active audience to my efforts on the energy situation. (See the end of this email) From contacts I have made, I find many environmentalist groups have their own, self-serving agenda having little to do with solving environmental problems. They have much to say and do about obtaining grants and donations to expand their influence and study the problems while condemning those who disagree with their agenda in any way. Apparently, they see real solutions as a reason for their dissolution and loss of funding so survival instincts drive them toward complicated solutions in the distant future (the hydrogen fuel-cell people) and away from simple, immediate solutions no matter how effective. Isn’t that precisely how government bureaucrats think?

What we need to do is find humanitarian ways to solve the most serious environmental problems that are already upon us. Sustainability is one goal, but certainly not the only worthwhile goal, maybe not even the primary goal.

In my opinion, the first goal should be a serious effort to prevent the annihilation of world wide species diversity in our forests, plains, steppes, mountains and arctic. Replacing a diverse forest with deliberate planting of one or two species (as the New Guinea highlanders did) succeeds, but is certainly not a most desired replacement for a diverse forest. Maintaining large enough wild environments to sustain viable populations of wild life, both animal and plant and in many diverse environments on the globe, I see as one worthwhile goal. If we don’t find a way to prevent it, large tracts of virgin forests will soon become a thing of the past throughout the world. The Japanese preserved their own forests by importing destroyed forests from the rest of the world. The US, Germany and several other nations have been steadily increasing their forest acreage, but most growth has been in small patches isolated by surrounding farmland. What is truly needed are large, connected tracts where forest creatures can move freely.

Maintaining sustainable stocks of wild foods - fish, sea creatures, wild animals (bush meat), fruits, nuts and other edibles - should be another. Add to that soil preservation and prevention of erosion damage and air and water pollution. All of this demands rational cooperation of all peoples on the globe - certainly a difficult and possibly unrealistic goal.

Example: With all of the international accord about limiting taking of sea creatures from endangered populations, there are still "rogue" nations with expanding, high-tech fishing fleets harvesting rapidly diminishing and irreplaceable stocks. We are now rapidly diminishing the capability of most fish stocks to sustain a viable population even as our wild fish and sea food harvest grows smaller. This despite use of the latest technology to find and catch creatures in the open sea. Only in areas controlled by nations willing to use force to apply stringent limits to where and when stocks may be taken and where size, species and total catch limits are imposed. Creatures of the open sea are still taken without limit by the previously mentioned, "rogue" fishing fleets. After years of increases in total world catches, those totals are now spiraling downwards as many productive fisheries have crashed and may take decades or even centuries to restore to sustainable levels.

I’m still searching for an in-depth university study I read about ten years ago that reported a maximum sustainable population of 3.5 billion at first world consumption levels and 6.5 billion at third world consumption levels. That was before many ocean fisheries crashed. With billions now living at starvation levels and between 6 and 7 billion souls now on the planet, the appeal of a culture that says, "the Western world is responsible for our poverty so let’s kill them all." is unmistakable. Expanding terrorism and massive migration from third world nations to first world nations is a pretty good indicator of what’s happening -- right now!

You said, "There are problems, of course. We lack the will in the US to pursue solar power satellites; these would end current concerns about global warming, fossil fuels, pollution from the oil industry, drilling operations, et cetera -- and we'd have to come up with new things to worry about.

"We could supply energy and technology cheaply to third world countries; to some, this WOULD be terrible!"

I am currently doing a massive update on a little book on solutions to the energy problem that directly addresses your comments. I decided last year to replace the title, "The SUPER Hydrogen Economy" with, "The Tribrid Vehicle Economy" after several important people mistakenly thought I was supporting research on the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I do not see the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle system as ever becoming a viable, economically feasible system for transport.

Here are a few links to the project before the current update which is actually a major addition and expansion of the scope of the book, but with very few changes. I believe I made these links available to SFN in a previous email some time ago. Now that I have more time to write, I hope to complete the update by the year’s end and have it published.

New Vehicle Fuels - alternatives - Click Here!
Tribrid Vehicle, The - Overview - Click Here!
Tribrid© Vehicle Economy, The - Click Here!

Factual education is the only answer while political and religious indoctrination (so prevalent throughout the whole world) will only serve to amplify our problems. I hope reality is not the triumph of a single ideology in control of all of humanity.

Howard
_____________________________________________________
Response to Rex - above:

I don't mind being a sounding board. I don't agree with some of your assessments.... for one, the oceans are a perfect example of the "Tragedy of the Commons". Nobody owns the oceans, not even the UN, so they are treated poorly. Fishing concerns simply vacuum clean all the fish and waste the little ones. So they don't mature. If we could parcel out the oceans and let people own them things would change...

Chances are that more fish in the future will be farmed.

People will probably have no more children than they feel that they need. Developing nations shower the undeveloped in birth control. These are not widely used because people need labor to farm. This is because much of Africa seems to rely upon subsistence farming, which is inefficient and vulnerable to crop failure.
In Zimbabwe the trend has been towards such subsistence farming for political reasons. Probably the same thing will occur in Venezuela and other states with retrograde governments based upon Victorian notions of self and State. Doubtless we'll see even less food if these antique governing methods spread. Of course since these ideas often devolve into marxism and farmers are placed into collectives food will be even more scarce.

I am a believer in equilibria.... things will assume a level of activity based upon inputs and outputs. There is a possibility of collapse, but there is a greater likelihood of adaptation.

For example, I expect in my lifetime to walk or ride mass transit rather than drive an automobile. "The Car" will come out for long distance trips, which will be very well planned. I expect gasoline to be very expensive. I do not expect us to use hydrogen - hydrogen is a volatile gas which is hard to manage. We'll probably use compressed light weight hydrocarbons or alcohols both which are far more manageable than hydrogen. Sooner or later battery technology could permit us to use electric cars, but then the bottleneck becomes power generation.

As one commentator put it best; "India and China have a rising middle class. They will compete for the same petroleum that middle and lower class Americans take for granted today". "Peak Oil" will occur when demand meets supply, and I expect that shortly.

Chances are that we'll see a greater sense of "small town" America, as it was in older times when automobiles were a luxury item. We also may move into large cities, though I am not hip with sharing my space with the dysfunctional detrius of the "Great Society", who seem to think that people owe them something more than basic courtesy and a chance to pursue happiness. I live beside people of almost every race, creed and color, but I have no patience for gangs of either the private or public sector variety. Our police keep a lid on such childishness, and we participate in local government which keeps the official mischief to a dull roar.

I also think that people are pretty good as settling issues on their own. We in the Western World did found most of today's institutions.

I sneer, and I emphasize the word "SNEER" at the idea of "sustainable". Like so many modern terms it means whatever the Elites want it to mean. For me it mainly means solar energy by another name. Insufficiently dense for a modern civilization. Only a Green or idealist, who probably think that electricity comes from a wall socket, that meat comes from the store and that bread comes from a delivery truck, subscribe to the idea that we can get by with solar power.

Solar satellites require a huge amount of heavy lift launch capability. Gerald K. O'Neill's "High Frontier" was an attempt to house lunar workers in comfortable settings so that the Lunar soil could be mined and refined into materials suitable for these satellites. Probably today we could do the same thing with robots, but who will tell the UN we want to mine up there? They'll probably insist on their "cut", which they'll squander on plush accommodations, perqs and a private UN army. I say "No taxation without Representation"

Gene
_____________________________________________________
Howard Johnson wrote:
Keith: Yes, education and affluence seems to moderate population growth, but even in the article you sighted, written in 2000, (and which I read, thank you) a world population of about 8 billion is mentioned as a realistic ceiling to be reached in 2030. Does anyone seriously believe this is a realistic, sustainable level considering the headlong drive of third world nations like China and India to enjoy first world lifestyles for their people?

Not a few Americans don't completely enjoy "first world" lifestyles, Howard. Many subsist on poorly paid jobs, working long hours. They drive older vehicles, if they have a car. They live in rental housing. They forgo medical treatment or accept substandard treatment. They don't take vacations. They accept government assistance to educate their kids or to take care of medical needs.

I live on the rim of Appalachia. We have areas where people haven't seen a dentist for most of their lives. They have knowledge of the modern world due to TV but they subsist on meager government aid, poorly paying jobs and sometimes indulge in petty crime to make ends meet. They are not "educated" as much as they are indoctrinated, either by their elders or by government schools. Most of their education comes from life experiences.

I used to work in an urban dialysis clinic. I've met their urban cousins. Aside the likelihood that one will be of African ancestry and the other European there isn't a great deal of difference between 'em.

Still like to know what YOU mean by "sustainable". Forever and ever? You really need to read some Buckminster Fuller and get your head around the idea of "doing more with less."

Gene
_____________________________________________________
8-15-06 - from Dave - Literary Junkie:

Well, it looks like this thread is playing out. I've been following it, but until now hadn't joined in with any comments.

Here's my dilemma.

Obviously, the right thing to do is manage the planet and it's resources properly. Stop pollution, and slow the growth of the population to an easily sustainable level without putting a strain on the resources or provide a door to off planet colonization.

However, China and the other developing nations are gonna do as they bloody well please regardless of what we say or what sanctions we impose.

Third world country populations live at a subsistence level and will do whatever is necessary to eat today and tomorrow regardless of the effect on the environment. They probably don't realize the harm they do, or if they did know, their only other choice might be starvation.

Return to a society that is in harmony with the environment might be possible with our level of technology, but maybe our level of technology cannot be sustained without harming the environment. I don't think you'll find more than a half dozen per million people willing to give up technology and live a life without modern conveniences, air conditioning, and heat, easy transportation, easy communication, food preservation, food preparation, medical facilities, medicine, and indoor plumbing, (Ever made a trip to the outhouse in the middle of the winter at night? Then cleaned up with slick catalog pages? Or used leaves out in the forest? They tear way too easy. And you better know what leaves are poison.) Sorry, got off on a tangent. But those of us who have lived without modern conveniences know how hard it would be to give them up.

Then there is the problem with population that we have created ourselves by sustaining the destitute. Now don't get me wrong. I think we should help everyone we can. But are we simply creating a bigger problem when we don't let drought, war, famine, pestilence, etc., thin out the population affected? We truck in food and build tent cities, and the result is more babies from those who can't even feed themselves.

Ever watch those infomercials about 'starving children'? They tell how a society has been at war or suffering from drought for 20 years and all the orphans need help. Wouldn't it be proper to explain that sex makes babies and demand population control in exchange for the food? It could be done on an individual by individual bases. Maybe that's harsh, but if you keep feeding them, they keep making more babies who starve or have to be fed.

My dilemma is in thinking that we can come up with a workable solution, or even the perfect solution, but implementation is impossible. Our society is fractured, and the only way to properly implement a solution to the socio-eco problems today would be a world wide totalitarian government with no qualms about isolating or eliminating those who don't comply with the rules. (I could also argue that the Biblical picture of the 1000 years of peace 'Millennium reign' could easily be summed up by the previous sentence.)

So, in my opinion, this leaves us with good two options.

1) Write about it. Put it in your stories. Don't get preachy or your stories won't sell. Also, join Greenpeace or something if you are so inclined.

2) The option I choose. Do something personal within your own means. And I mean more than talking about it. My example. I bought 2 acres with a house on it. The front acre is yard. The back acre is my own little contribution to the forests. It is wooded. It is allowed to be as God or Nature sees fit.

But I will also fight tooth and nail to have the rights to do with my land as I please. Try to force me to preserve it, and I'd have it destroyed before you could get back from the judge with a court order. And that, I believe is the heart of the problem. It's easy to know what someone else should do, but seldom do they agree. The responsible thing is to do what we can.

So, somebody tell me why my arguments are valid or stupid.

What would happen if we encountered another race of beings who considered us global saboteurs? Sounds very possible doesn't it? What would they demand of us? What would be our response?

Terraforming is changing worlds to fit us. Is there a word for the genetic altering of mankind to fit the environments of other worlds? There have been some stories I've read that touch on it, but none that major on it. Wouldn't that be more simple than Terraforming? What about a story altering man to live on this planet so he could be in harmony with his environment, be it water, ice, rain forest, desert, mountains. That would make for racial diversity that makes color or features a joke.
_____________________________________________________
Word from Don:
All, I have been meaning to comment on this thread for a while, since to some degree it is the central theme of a novel I have been working on-and-off for a while.

First, I would agree with Bruce's assessment of the rarity of actual collapse. Most often, it's a matter of one civilization acceding to another.

I disagree somewhat with the assertion that our knowledge base is indestructible. I prefer to think that AS A WHOLE, it is not destructible, but that without effort to maintain it AS IT IS, it, like practically everything else over long periods of time, will degrade. At first, it may be simple things like (this is factual) losing the original recording of the "one small setep" speechlet by Neil Armstrong, or losing (again, factual) the original plans for the Apollo project / Saturn V. I think this simple fact can have far reaching consequences.

I think the Middle East presents a good example of how some things will persist, and others will fade. There's no running water in some places, no reliable power, no central government in Southern Lebanon, but there are laptop computers, sophisticated planning, a strong military (say what you want here, but you're missing my point), transportation, etc.

What is missing from it all are the luxuries we are accustomed to: safety, freedom, and those other things that come from our heritage. When we cease to maintain those (and others), I believe things will degrade.

Collapse? I don't think so... But it's possible for a civilization to pass its glory days without knowing it. I think that is far more likelyto happen, and the dystopian visions that a good writer could spin would still make for an interesting story.

One final comment re: environmental predictions -- true, Earth is far more capable than we think of "bouncing back" from what we do to it, BUT... We cannot control the WAY in which it will bounce back, nor can we really control the consequences. It may bounce back from global warming by releasing more oxygen into the atmosphere and absorbing more CO2, for instance -- and I'm making this up -- which over the long haul might reduce temperatures, but at a risk of increased forest fires, ocean acidification, changes in the gulf stream, etc. My point is not that we're screwing up the environment -- regardless of whether you agree or disagree, IT WILL CHANGE IF IT'S OUT OF WHACK. And again, the dystopian visions, whatever they may be, make for a good background for a story.

I think as writers we can all look at the world around us, find something we cherish and something we fear, and write about it the conflict that the changes produce. To me, that's the soul of the art.

Don
_____________________________________________________
From Jeff:

I don't know Don I fear it may be all too possible for essential knowledge to vanish It has happened in the past (the library of Alexandria)... The burning of Rome...The dead sea scrolls. Sometimes lost information is rediscovered...more often it is not. The problem is, that we are by definition unaware of what we have lost. (lol..name something you have forgotten)

While SOME people value knowledge...i fear that most people do not. -------------------- If there was a pandemic (in the vein of the classic SF novel EARTH ABIDES)... Followed by looting and burning... what might be irretrievably lost?
Perhaps I have grown too cynical over time. Just about the time I think mankind has grown up and I read about great discoveries in medicine and technology or cosmology....I read about mass murders in Iraq involving shepherds that have been killed by religious enforcers, because the shepherds violated the most recent edict by the mad mullahs who decided that all goats needed to be dressed in diapers (yes, it is true. The religious leaders in portions of Iraq decided that in the sexually repressed Islam fundamentalist world, the sight of goat genitalia is too much of a temptation for young men.) Shepherds who fail to cover that backsides of their herds are being sought out and shot.

Think on this... These are not people who see value in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. If information is preserved... It would not be the result of civilizations (and I use the word VERY loosely) whose priorities are killing shepherds who don't dress their goats in diapers. If a worldwide economic collapse occurred and electronic files were lost and libraries burned... If civilizations collapsed to the point that this type of social behavior was the norm... not the exception.... How profound would the loss of knowledge become? Shades of Saint Lebowitz...(another classic post apocalyptic tale)

Think, how long would it take mankind to recreate, rebuild or rediscover the information in that single technical book? It is not something you could memorize (Fahrenheit 451)

I agree with Don on one point. I am not worried about the fragility of the environment (earth's homeostatic equilibrium is far more robust that mankind's socioeconomic house of cards)

But I am far more pessimistic than Don on the fate of civilization and the preservation of knowledge. If troubled times Do occur..i fear that it will be knowledge and information that will be amongst the first wave of victims.

Jeff Robinson

By the way there are some EXCELLENT books on this topic...See Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond And also Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies Read them If you dare...they only made me even more depressed :-(

Note from HoJo - That’s the literature that prompted me to start this entire thread.
_____________________________________________________
From Gene, responding to Don
What about skills? I've heard that NASA engineers are examining remaining examples of the Saturn rocket for clues to build the Constellation. Rocket Science is science.... right? Well, how many of the team who built and engineered that fine machine are still alive?

I'd like to see a show of hands.... how many of you people work with your hands for a living? How about in a skilled trade, for example, as a machinist, or some other form of artisan? How about in creative sciences, such as mathematics and physics, where there is a lot of "taste" and "maturity" issues? Music is an entire universe of taste, talent and skill building. So are graphic arts.

How many of you are willing to admit that even writing fiction requires a modicum of skills? Libraries are important... far more important are the things which are not written down, which cannot ever be written down.
For example, one of my hobbies is learning keyboards, specifically baroque music. There are no existing baroque musicians. They and their style died in the late 1700s. Aside some "barrel organs" which have preserved some playing we are not completely sure about ornamentation practices, performance practices, etc. We have music, especially of J.S. Bach who liked to ornament everything very specifically. However how Bach did it might not be how others would have done it. I am currently learning to play keyboard but I will probably never be able to completely duplicate the sort of music Bach and Handel played. I started too late in life, and more importantly, there is no teachers around who can show me EXACTLY how it was done.

We need to think about this, especially some of you out there who are comfortable with totalitarian governments. A lot of good people got "plowed under" by the Nazis and Soviets. Many of them probably had irreplaceable skills. Go look up a character named "Lysenko" and then reconsider this totalitarian non-sense.

Gene