It's interesting that he cites Amory Lovins as a positive example. Lovins is certainly an optimist, and certainly believes that technology can save us. But he (Lovins) also understands that there are real physical limits that we must work within, and which we are currently ignoring to our peril, atmospheric CO2 concentration being among them. Dyson does not strike me as someone who is willing to accept any limits at all.
For what it's worth, I basically agree with Lovins about the technical potential for a sustainble and propserous future. He's made some good calls (hybrid vehicles, and high-speed composite stamping technology) and some bad ones (hydrogen, ethanol), but fundamentally, I think he's right: If we're half-smart as a species, we can create a much better world for all of us, by acknowledging and working within limits, than we are currently doing in our efforts to ignore these limits.
My pessimism, such as it is, is about people: individually they can be very smart, but collectively they are almost always stupid. And people who are faced with an unpleasant reality that they can put off to the future, albeit at some cost, are the stupidest of all.
Just to clarify, the unpleasant reality I am refering to in the last post is not a 30' sea-level rise, or a reduction in standard of living, or the loss of personal freedom. All these things are quite possible, but not inevitable. The unpleasant reality I'm talking about is simply the need to change our relationship with the world, and our way of thinking about it. And that, apparently, scares the shit out of most everyone.
Having a new political class of gaiacrats controlling our "relationship with the world" terrifies some people as much as having theocrats dictating the relationship with God does others. Further discussion should be on my other journal. (http://libertarianhawk.livejournal.com/)
There's a couple of posts on global warming: http://libertarianhawk.livejournal.com/12041.html http://libertarianhawk.livejournal.com/31441.html Or shall I start a new one?
[I've been segregating politics and other stuff to avoid friction with some of my flist]
Well, I'll certainly have to read and comment on those GW threads when I have time. Thing is, my current point isn't really about global warming. It's not really even about politics. It's more a matter of philosophy.
The question at issue is whether or not one believes that humanity is subject, over the long term, to some of the same constraints that apply to the other lifeforms on the planet.
Amory Lovins definitely believes these constraints exist, that they can only be put off or ignored for so long, and that we are nearing the day when we will need to come to grips with them. He also believes that humanity can have a prosperous future by accepting these constraints and engineering within them. (In this respect he is very philosophically similar to architect Bill McDonough (http://mcdonough.com/).)
From his statements and general attitude, I would think that Dyson does not believe that these constraints are relevant to human development. But then he cites Lovins as an example of an optimist. So I'm not sure what his position is. Perhaps he sees that there are constraints which humanity must respect, at least in the near term, and is simply trying to distinguish himself from the doombats (http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/05/peak-oil-taxonomy-doombat.html).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-14 11:38 pm (UTC)For what it's worth, I basically agree with Lovins about the technical potential for a sustainble and propserous future. He's made some good calls (hybrid vehicles, and high-speed composite stamping technology) and some bad ones (hydrogen, ethanol), but fundamentally, I think he's right: If we're half-smart as a species, we can create a much better world for all of us, by acknowledging and working within limits, than we are currently doing in our efforts to ignore these limits.
My pessimism, such as it is, is about people: individually they can be very smart, but collectively they are almost always stupid. And people who are faced with an unpleasant reality that they can put off to the future, albeit at some cost, are the stupidest of all.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-14 11:41 pm (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 02:45 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 03:42 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 04:03 am (UTC)http://libertarianhawk.livejournal.com/12041.html
http://libertarianhawk.livejournal.com/31441.html
Or shall I start a new one?
[I've been segregating politics and other stuff to avoid friction with some of my flist]
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 08:23 pm (UTC)The question at issue is whether or not one believes that humanity is subject, over the long term, to some of the same constraints that apply to the other lifeforms on the planet.
Amory Lovins definitely believes these constraints exist, that they can only be put off or ignored for so long, and that we are nearing the day when we will need to come to grips with them. He also believes that humanity can have a prosperous future by accepting these constraints and engineering within them. (In this respect he is very philosophically similar to architect Bill McDonough (http://mcdonough.com/).)
From his statements and general attitude, I would think that Dyson does not believe that these constraints are relevant to human development. But then he cites Lovins as an example of an optimist. So I'm not sure what his position is. Perhaps he sees that there are constraints which humanity must respect, at least in the near term, and is simply trying to distinguish himself from the doombats (http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/05/peak-oil-taxonomy-doombat.html).
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-16 09:41 pm (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 02:00 am (UTC)http://libertarianhawk.livejournal.com/33619.html