|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
This newsgroup's topic looks at the future. Has anyone else here
thought of looking to see what *other* people are thinking about the future? I've just acquired a copy of Friedman, and his 'The Next 100 Years' seems to me to want serious reading. Which I'm doing now. I think I see a serious error in the book. He projects another world war in the future, in which there is a major space war component. What he completely misses, in my view, is he doesn't see the *major* consequences of orbiting space junk after some large satellites have been destroyed. Well, that's one view of the future. Which reminds me of John Naisbitt's two Megatrends books. I read one of those almost 30 years ago, and it had slipped from my memory. Now I want to find a copy of his first Megatrends book, and read it again. Because, here we are thinking about the future, and doesn't it make a lot of sense to look around at what others have thought about the future? If we do our homework, maybe *we* can say and do things that have a useful impact. Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 24] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
Martha Adams wrote: I've just acquired a copy of Friedman, and his 'The Next 100 Years' seems to me to want serious reading. I've got a copy of a book of the same title by C.C. Furnas from 1936. People who write such books do not lack ego. Furnas starts out the book with eugenics of course - which was very big in the US at the time - ten years later, amid the ruins of Germany, everyone started rethinking that concept and its social effects. Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
On Jan 24, 11:53*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Martha Adams wrote: * I've just acquired a copy of Friedman, and his 'The Next 100 Years' seems to me to want serious reading. I've got a copy of a book of the same title by C.C. Furnas from 1936. People who write such books do not lack ego. Furnas starts out the book with eugenics of course - which was very big in the US at the time - ten years later, amid the ruins of Germany, everyone started rethinking that concept and its social effects. To such an extent that even specious arguments are used against it. Obviously, "eugenics" aimed at ethnic minorities isn't eugenics. Taking action against the harm done by genetic defects, though, would seem entirely legitimate. One book I read noted that eliminating Huntingdon's chorea by eugenics would be ridiculous, since because that is a dominant gene which manifests itself late in life, attempting to prevent anyone being born with it would prevent many healthy children from being conceived. To which "So what?" is all the answer that's needed. Of course, a more common argument concerns recessives. The human genome is big. The average person has genes for, say, 100 lethal recessives. Which doesn't inhibit reproduction, since the chance of even one of those recessives being the same in one's mate is low. But given that, since "sterilize everybody" is not a recipe for an improved human species, isn't eugenics impossible? This is not true, it just shows a lack of thought. Yes, one can clean up the gene pool in such a circumstance. Just pick a set of recessives to eliminate in one generation, small enough so that only part of the population is sterilized. Then, in the next generation, add some more recessives to the list, since the first group will be eliminated except for new mutations. And repeat with each generation. The objections to eugenics aren't practical ones. Instead, the moral objection that humans aren't lab animals to be bred as desired, and the fact that having one's own biological children is a deeply- ingrained human desire, are the objections that matter. Ultimately, though, I don't think it would be a nightmare if people decided that for the sake of their children's well-being, they would opt exclusively for assisted reproduction so that harmful genetic disorders could be excluded from their gametes before fertilization would be allowed to take place. Such a future would not be a nightmare; getting rid of Down's syndrome, for example, is a good thing in the way that getting rid of polio is a good thing, if you don't do it by going around and shooting the sufferers. John Savard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
"Quadibloc" wrote in message
... On Jan 24, 11:53 am, Pat Flannery wrote: Martha Adams wrote: I've just acquired a copy of Friedman, and his 'The Next 100 Years' seems to me to want serious reading. I've got a copy of a book of the same title by C.C. Furnas from 1936. People who write such books do not lack ego. Furnas starts out the book with eugenics of course - which was very big in the US at the time - ten years later, amid the ruins of Germany, everyone started rethinking that concept and its social effects. To such an extent that even specious arguments are used against it. Obviously, "eugenics" aimed at ethnic minorities isn't eugenics. Taking action against the harm done by genetic defects, though, would seem entirely legitimate. One book I read noted that eliminating Huntingdon's chorea by eugenics would be ridiculous, since because that is a dominant gene which manifests itself late in life, attempting to prevent anyone being born with it would prevent many healthy children from being conceived. To which "So what?" is all the answer that's needed. Of course, a more common argument concerns recessives. The human genome is big. The average person has genes for, say, 100 lethal recessives. Which doesn't inhibit reproduction, since the chance of even one of those recessives being the same in one's mate is low. But given that, since "sterilize everybody" is not a recipe for an improved human species, isn't eugenics impossible? This is not true, it just shows a lack of thought. Yes, one can clean up the gene pool in such a circumstance. Just pick a set of recessives to eliminate in one generation, small enough so that only part of the population is sterilized. Then, in the next generation, add some more recessives to the list, since the first group will be eliminated except for new mutations. And repeat with each generation. The objections to eugenics aren't practical ones. Instead, the moral objection that humans aren't lab animals to be bred as desired, and the fact that having one's own biological children is a deeply- ingrained human desire, are the objections that matter. Ultimately, though, I don't think it would be a nightmare if people decided that for the sake of their children's well-being, they would opt exclusively for assisted reproduction so that harmful genetic disorders could be excluded from their gametes before fertilization would be allowed to take place. Such a future would not be a nightmare; getting rid of Down's syndrome, for example, is a good thing in the way that getting rid of polio is a good thing, if you don't do it by going around and shooting the sufferers. John Savard ========================================= I don't see how this thread jumped over to eugenics and genetics in its very first response. I think I'm still in *sci.space.policy*, where the future is of great interest. Apart from a lot of useful information, two things in particular were interesting the 1) In the first chapter of the book, a sort of a preface, he illustrates what a difference *20 years* makes across time. Having lived in it, I had not noticed this key point that in 20 years, *almost everything changes.* For example, we have some people working at space access projects now that are expected to run for nearly that length of time. I had commented that it was a bad idea to go so slow, because not least, it's two or more Presidential turnovers and each President will want to make his mark there. So *20 years is serious time*. 2) And the second thing I am finding from this book is, how do you think about large topics? Usually the current bills, the groceries, and what's going on in cyberspace are my daily topic. My attention span there is maybe a few months wide for the things that are larger in time. But here is Friedman, thinking in decades and centuries: if I'm going to do anything like that, it pays off big for me to review how someone else does it. So Friedman looks like a mighty good book to be reading. Also, by the way, there's John Naisbitt, who published a book in 1982 titled 'Megatrends.' And a followup book a few years later. Now I need to review some of Naisbitt's work to see how he did what he did. I don't expect anyone to predict the future, but it sure is interesting to see some pointers on how to think about it. It's really another kind of fiction, more work to read than say Heinlein or Tolkein or O'Brian, but after all it's another topical area. I'm going to get a lot out of Friedman, 'The Next 100 Years,' and I won't fall aside into some strange and disconnected topic like ...eugenics? ?? Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 25] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
Martha Adams wrote: I don't see how this thread jumped over to eugenics and genetics in its very first response. Expect the unexpected! That is the very basis of the forward march of humanity's mental evolution! If you heard a clawing at the door, and looked through the peephole in it to see nothing, you might think it is one of Scott Lowther's cats fleeing from his desert survivalist hideaway due to being driven half-mad and half-blind from being photographed too much, and invite it in to protect it, in your mercy. But what if it _wasn't_ one of those? What... if instead... it was crouching Saber-Tooth Tiger thrown through some sort of time warp that ended up gnawing a bone of a Mastodon directly in front of your door? How the Hell are you going to deal with _that_ situation when you open the door? Huh? How are you to going deal with _THAT_? You had better be thinking pretty damn fast at that moment, Homo Sapiens Girl, hadn't you? That's just a hypothetical situation, but it's something worth thinking about. I think about it. I think about it _a lot_. :-D Pat |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
Martha Adams wrote: Expect the unexpected! That is the very basis of the forward march of humanity's mental evolution! If you heard a clawing at the front door, and looked through the peephole in it to see nothing, you might think it was one of Scott Lowther's cats fleeing from his desert survivalist hideaway due to being driven half-mad and half-blind from being photographed too much with a strobe flash...and invite it in to protect it...in your mercy. But what if it _wasn't_ one of those? What... if instead... it was a crouching Saber-Tooth Tiger thrown through some sort of time warp that ended up gnawing a bone of a Mastodon directly in front of your door? How the Hell are you going to deal with _that_ situation when you open the door? Huh? How are you to going deal with _THAT_? You had better be thinking pretty damn fast at that moment, Homo Sapiens Girl, hadn't you? Because if you don't, there's a very good chance you are going to be ripped limb-from-limb by a extinct carnivore. ...and although this would make a most interesting eulogy in the newspaper (and a pretty damn good "X-Files" episode also) it's not worth dieing for, and is a sure recommendation for carrying a .45 caliber pistol with you whenever you open the front door for any reason whatsoever. Of course, that's just a hypothetical situation, but it's something worth thinking about. I think about it. I think about it _a lot_. :-D Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
Quadibloc wrote: To such an extent that even specious arguments are used against it. Furnas is perfect; he was a Olympic athlete, and a very smart chemistry professor at Yale... the very epitome of a Rhodes Scholar. And someone who will certainly save all of us Anglo-Saxons from any contamination of our bloodlines via the mongrel races of humanity, as Cecil Rhodes would have. Key to understanding this concept is of course the basic inferiority of the Negroid races in relation to the Aryan/Caucasian races. The Negroids great physical strength can never be controlled by the innate nervous sensibility that the white man posses, and of course any sort of physical sport practiced by this sort of semi-ape creature must inevitably be of the most basic and crude type if it is to succeed. As examples, both Baseball and Golf would stand far beyond their abilities due to the degree of thought and coordination that such sophisticated interactions of the mind and body would require. In the same way, the hope that any Negro could ever achieve high office in our land must be dismissed as a foolish phantasm, as the crude development of the Negro throat and its limited ability to understand any sophisticated form of language such as English must inevitably make it a clown when trying to speak in a articulate manner. There shall never be any Negro member of Congress of any note, much less a president... a concept as foolish as thinking that the spiral nebula of the skies are of any great size compared to our own blessed and singular solar system. :-) Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
On Jan 24, 11:03*pm, Pat Flannery wrote (and
largely quoted): Furnas is perfect; Rightly, we've rejected racism. But eugenics is rejected even in legitimate forms that have nothing to do with racism. As I've noted, though, probably a model approximating that of "Beyond This Horizon", and further restricted to negative eugenics, is all that one might expect of people to accept. As examples, both Baseball and Golf would stand far beyond their abilities due to the degree of *thought and coordination that such sophisticated interactions of the mind and body would require. Ah, yes: Willie Mays and Tiger Woods being well known to us. In the same way, the hope that any Negro could ever achieve high office in our land must be dismissed as a foolish phantasm, Which is particularly perfect at this point in time. There shall never be any Negro member of Congress of any note, But there might be ones not noteworthy? Apparently he remembered Reconstruction, or something. much less a president... a concept as foolish as thinking that the spiral nebula of the skies are of any great size compared to our own blessed and singular solar system. Ah, yes. Not someone whose advice I would wish to follow at the Kentucky Derby. A perfect record of backing the wrong horses indeed. John Savard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
On 24 Jan, 16:36, "Martha Adams" wrote:
This newsgroup's topic looks at the future. *Has anyone else here thought of looking to see what *other* people are thinking about the future? *I've just acquired a copy of Friedman, and his 'The Next 100 Years' seems to me to want serious reading. *Which I'm doing now. I think I see a serious error in the book. *He projects another world war in the future, in which there is a major space war component. *What he completely misses, in my view, is he doesn't see the *major* consequences of orbiting space junk after some large satellites have been destroyed. *Well, that's one view of the future. Which reminds me of John Naisbitt's two Megatrends books. *I read one of those almost 30 years ago, and it had slipped from my memory. *Now I want to find a copy of his first Megatrends book, and read it again. Because, here we are thinking about the future, and doesn't it make a lot of sense to look around at what others have thought about the future? *If we do our homework, maybe *we* can say and do things that have a useful impact. Surely one of the major facts of the next 100 years, if not THE major fact is AI. AI in space and AI otherwise. The "singularity is predicted for round about 2040. Questions :- 1) Do we believe in singularities? 2) If we don't what major advances can we see. I would not seek to predict 100 years. In the next 20 I would predict the following. 1) Within 5-10 years robots with numan manual dexterity. 2) Within 20 swarm based AI of considerable power. 3) An end to Microsoft within Obama's term (I am assuming 2 terms). He has pledged investment in broadband. This will cut away Microsoft and all the companies shifting boxes. We will get all our software from the Web. It will be partitioned so that some of it runs on our computer, some on Google servers. 4) A workable Von Neumann machine within 15 years. Pace of space developments will be set by AI. No people beyond LEO until we get a VN machine. If Constellation is cancelled, and it looks as if it will be, there won't be anybody beyond LEO for the period specified. How does this feed into policy? Well one should decide whether NASA can help technology along or whether it should concentrate on space ratring components. Mining asteroids, for example depends on getting robots space rated as soon as they appear. All I have said is simple extrapolating current trends. It will probable be 30-40 years before we get things like nanotech based spacesuits. Basic robotics is fairly well advanced. Nanotech is still very much in the fundamental research stage. Wars etc. will depend on the choices we make. I can only say "I hope not" but you cannot predict. I don't know about what will happen in the Middle East as far as conflict is concerned. As far as technology is concerned the Mediterranean will be desalinated. How this will plug into conflict is another question. - Ian Parker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
George Friedman, The Next 100 Years
"Ian Parker" wrote in message
... On 24 Jan, 16:36, "Martha Adams" wrote: This newsgroup's topic looks at the future. Has anyone else here thought of looking to see what *other* people are thinking about the future? I've just acquired a copy of Friedman, and his 'The Next 100 Years' seems to me to want serious reading. Which I'm doing now. I think I see a serious error in the book. He projects another world war in the future, in which there is a major space war component. What he completely misses, in my view, is he doesn't see the *major* consequences of orbiting space junk after some large satellites have been destroyed. Well, that's one view of the future. Which reminds me of John Naisbitt's two Megatrends books. I read one of those almost 30 years ago, and it had slipped from my memory. Now I want to find a copy of his first Megatrends book, and read it again. Because, here we are thinking about the future, and doesn't it make a lot of sense to look around at what others have thought about the future? If we do our homework, maybe *we* can say and do things that have a useful impact. Surely one of the major facts of the next 100 years, if not THE major fact is AI. AI in space and AI otherwise. The "singularity is predicted for round about 2040. Questions :- 1) Do we believe in singularities? 2) If we don't what major advances can we see. I would not seek to predict 100 years. In the next 20 I would predict the following. 1) Within 5-10 years robots with numan manual dexterity. 2) Within 20 swarm based AI of considerable power. 3) An end to Microsoft within Obama's term (I am assuming 2 terms). He has pledged investment in broadband. This will cut away Microsoft and all the companies shifting boxes. We will get all our software from the Web. It will be partitioned so that some of it runs on our computer, some on Google servers. 4) A workable Von Neumann machine within 15 years. Pace of space developments will be set by AI. No people beyond LEO until we get a VN machine. If Constellation is cancelled, and it looks as if it will be, there won't be anybody beyond LEO for the period specified. How does this feed into policy? Well one should decide whether NASA can help technology along or whether it should concentrate on space ratring components. Mining asteroids, for example depends on getting robots space rated as soon as they appear. All I have said is simple extrapolating current trends. It will probable be 30-40 years before we get things like nanotech based spacesuits. Basic robotics is fairly well advanced. Nanotech is still very much in the fundamental research stage. Wars etc. will depend on the choices we make. I can only say "I hope not" but you cannot predict. I don't know about what will happen in the Middle East as far as conflict is concerned. As far as technology is concerned the Mediterranean will be desalinated. How this will plug into conflict is another question. - Ian Parker ========================================== Well ...read the book. Much you say here, Friedman works on. It's useful to see what he says and how he gets to that. Settlements in space will be hard to do. I expect space settlements will prove to be the largest and hardest human accomplishment of the coming millennia. And the most productive, for reasons Frederick Jackson Turner's 1893 paper points to. See also, works by Robert Zubrin, such as his 'The Case for Mars.' I feel very doubtful about 'singularities.' It seems very adolescent to me to be feeling, 'something big and catastrophic is about to happen,' when in fact, in these days it's going on all the time. It's an impressive word, 'singularity,' but I see no practical usefulness to it. It adds up to nothing significant, only a small buzzword or distraction. The acronym I use for closing postings reflects reality, and it's been around for a while: Today is the end of the world as we know it -- Titeotwawki And after 70+ years of looking at this world, I can only say, *It's True.* But the future is a whole another matter. As someone said at ISDC 2005 (my first ISDC), "To predict the future, make it." But as you may have noticed, making a future *that works* is hard to do; and success does not follow upon proceeding blindly. That's why I've become so interested lately in how people think about the future. That big a topic is just too big to simply jump into, however full of young and adolescent energy you may happen at the time to be. Some people -- a very few -- will set themselves to work and come up with something. I'm trying to. Some people, for whatever reason, won't. For example, I wouldn't bet a small fermented turd on this "Quadibloc" character over the long run. See his postings above, where he advertises so noisily all about ...himself. Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 25] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stanton Friedman Vs. The Right Perspective | NewsGuy | Misc | 0 | October 8th 07 02:06 PM |
Oil All Gone: The New Work Force "Kali" Apology VVFWS NOMINATION: Guilty: Anyone Who Is Deliberately Supporting George Bush George Bush: World's #1 Mass Murderer "Kali" and the Torture Camps: The Abu Gh | http://peaceinspace.com | Misc | 1 | March 28th 06 01:21 AM |
"Kali" Apology VVFWS NOMINATION: Guilty: Anyone Who Is Deliberately Supporting George Bush George Bush: World's #1 Mass Murderer "Kali" and the Torture Camps: The Abu Ghraib files Live From Fascist America | Double-A | Misc | 1 | March 26th 06 10:22 PM |
The Pseudoscience of SETI Debunked by Stanton Friedman | Imperishable Stars | Misc | 16 | September 28th 04 01:00 AM |