X-Message-Number: 7361
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Reply to Donaldson 1
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:28:59 +1100 (EST)

Thomas Donaldson writes,

>First of all, biotechnology is going very well indeed. It surprises me that 
>Mr. Merel can't see this, when it is all around him if he will only look. It
>is true that the older methods used in the Green Revolution probably can't
>help, but that refers to outmoded means of creating new plant forms anyway.

I understand and expect that biotech development will improve food
yield; the article I posted merely had to do with rates of improvement.
I'm not qualified to directly evaluate Dr Khush's estimations one way or
another - but I'm impressed by his credentials, and thought his concerns
germane to this discussion. If you think Khush's remarks are out of
line, can you provide more optimistic estimates from someone similarly
qualified?

>Second, I will repeat what I said. People, even peasants (who in Asia now
>are rapidly ceasing to be peasants and becoming middle class) do not go 
>around producing children by some kind of automatic, uncontrollable process.
>If necessary they will use infanticide if they decide they have too many. Just
>as in the Western world, we can disturb that process by doing such things as
>giving them unlimited food and other aid no matter how many children they 
>produce: when we do so, WE are being irrational, not they.... though again,
>I haven't read of any such process going on internationally. 

I agree with Thomas here, of course. Simply giving food to starving
people only creates more starving people. I also agree that, one way or
another, human population will not increase without sufficient food.
Where I think we disgree is only in estimating the ecological effect of
a human population that is chiefly controlled by starvation - I don't
think Thomas considers that effect to be significant, where it seems to
me to be potentially catastrophic.

But the next question, I think, must be "so what?". What does this
guff have to do with cryonet? Two things: first, this thread started in
reply to the projections of millenialism - that we should expect to
reach the stars with only the impediments of politics in our way. All
I've really suggested with this is that we have considerably greater
difficulties ahead than that.

Second, as cryonicists, we entertain a unique viewpoint. We are the very
first humans outside of the insane asylums with an expectation that we
may, personally, attain immortality and visit the stars. We are the
first to entertain concrete perspectives beyond the advancement of our
own hearth and tribe. If we take these perspectives seriously, then we
must try to figure out the lay of the land - what sorts of goals and
difficulties should we address in this longer view, and what
preparations should we try to make if we want to meet them?

But enough romance, let's get on with the one-liners:

>Anyone who refuses to admit the existence of jetliners will no doubt wonder
>just how our transportation system can manage so very many people.

I don't refuse to admit the existence of jetliners; I'm only skeptical
that they'll offer service to the moon. :-)

>Mr. Merel's worries are much like those of someone who sees a truck bearing 
>down on a turn in the road, and wonders whether or not the driver will be 
>intelligent enough to turn rather than run off the road.

I don't wonder about the driver's intelligence; I wonder whether there's 
any driver in there at all. :-)

Peter Merel.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7361