 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 6, 2008 at 17:56:25
The Main Problem: Thinking Too Small by George Washington Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
Is this true? Are those who want a better future thinking too big? Maybe. But I would argue that we are actually thinking too small. Too Small? If you think about it, mankind is on the cusp of creating technology that can terraform other planets, genetically engineer new life forms, live under the ocean, and create machines that can photsynthesize, or think or feel emotions.
A problem with the ... Movement is that it's attempting to "bite off" a piece way to big to be swallowed (e.g., ... truth, hand counting votes only, Constitutional reform or even convention, etc...)
Sure, technology can be used to destroy the environment, to kill, or to manipulate and enslave. But technology can also be used to empower us, to make us healthier, and to liberate us.
Technology itself is neutral. As one example, a knife can be used to kill or to save a life (if used as a scalpel).
Most of us are stuck in a mindset from the industrial revolution. For example:
- We're obsessed with oil. We might think we're running out (peak oil), or that we have to go steal someone else's (e.g. Iraq), or that we desperately have to drill in wildlife refuges and pristine coasts. But, whatever our belief, we're obsessed with it
- People are cogs in the machine of the economy
- The world is a machine. If we break any part of the environment, we'll just fix it or create something else. For example, some people are suggesting measures to solve global warming that might be alot worse than the problem. Like nuking the Panama Isthmus that connects the Pacific and Atlantic oceans (in order to correct the shut-down of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Current -- which are driven by salinity gradients -- which might occur due to increased melting of glaciers). Tweaking a natural system we don't understand isn't very smart.
One of the leading scientists today, Dr. Michio Kaku, wrote a book called Generations which argues that our development as a species is measured by how much energy we use. Specifically, Kaku argues that humanity is currently in a very primitive stage, where we are only getting energy from byproducts of the Sun (oil, gas, coal, etc.) Further down the road, Kaku argues, we'll be getting alot more energy directly from the Sun, and then by harnassing tremendous forces such as black holes or quantum fluctuations. In other words, Kaku argues that we are using so little energy the astronomical sense of things that we are barely out of diapers.
While this may at first seem like an anti-environmental position, think about this. If we had access to unlimited energy, we could use nanotechnology, artificial photosynthesis, genetic engineering, etc. to create whole worlds (just inject some bacteria!).
Here we are fighting brutal wars over a couple of million gallons of oil or -- coming soon to a country near you -- access to water supplies, when -- in the near future -- we could get abundant energy from higher-value sources and create our own water.
Do I sound like a dreamer? Well, scientists are smart, and if they put their brains to creating these things, they could easily do them. (read the discussion on ramjet propulsion engines in The Field for some insight into recent developments).
What About Nature?
You might think that I'm an anti-environmentalist. In fact, I think respect and reverence for every lifeform and for natural systems is very important.But I don't see an either-or choice.
Let me put this precisely: we can have super-high-tech and greater-reverence-for-nature at the same time. Why choose?
Indeed, we can preserve the Earth's ecosystems in a more pristine state if we develop large enough sources of energy. Then we won't have to pollute with primitive, low-technologies such as oil and coal.
The Constitution was based not only on the writings of Europeans like John Locke and ancient Greek systems of government, but also on the Iroquois Confederacy's constitution and system of checks and balances. The Iroquois respected nature. And true Evangelical Christians are now some of the biggest defenders of nature, because they understand that the Bible requires us to be good stewards of creation. So before you ridicule those who respect nature, I invite you to do investigate what our "founders" really thought about the subject.
1 | 2
www.WashingtonsBlog.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 10 comments |
|
How can we think bigger
in terms of technology and creating new possibilities, and still have reverence for "nature" or "God's creation" or "the natural order" or "animals" or "the environment" or "our life support system" or however we think of the world around us? by George Washington (189 articles, 27 quicklinks, 189 diaries, 219 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 6:05:36 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: May I weigh in for God?
God does not care about the technology that we develop as long as that technology is used to the benefit of man. (and woman, god I hate PC) The problem in our society arises because we are "playing" with the fabric of life without the morals and ethics that need to accompany it. When your God is money, your result will be disaster. by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 8:43:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Greed At The Root
The problem is with corporate giants too obsessed with greed and immediate gain and instant profit. If we manage to slow down the greed machine for a while so as we can change course and start "Thinking Big" we would be able to solve any challenges humanity faces today even the seemingly impossible one of tackling population control . With resources squandered in Iraq we could have gone a long way in the direction of harvesting the tremondous reserves of energy available to us while drastically reducing the burden on the our planet. by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 7:19:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: people power boycotts will cut off the roots
And we could do exactly that with Boycotts. Look what is happening at Fox Snooze. PEOPLE POWER WORKS. It's all we have left, so let's bloody get internet systematic about national (best of all, international) boycotts. It's heart breaking to see that WE HAVE THE POWER to defeat corporate fascism INDEPENDENTLY of what used to be the Democratic Party. Who needs 'em. We can do this ourselves -- and we can even do it very quickly. Not to do this is to commit national suicide. by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (291 articles, 59 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 767 comments [44 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 9:51:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Bigger
To think bigger we need to haavee time to think and also know how. To think bigger we need to understand that 'the world does not want to be saved. It wants to be left alone'. To think bigger we also need to understand that to 'become a vegetarian you first have to be full with meat'. Bottomline- we need to appreciate the fact that we are not better than others in any way. And that's the LAW OF NATURE by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4103 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:44:24 AM (0+)
|
|
We should think especially bigger...
about reducing resource consumption and the world population of humans, given how simple and practical such would be. But yes, I too am blown away by the potential technology has, and in fact working in that vein daily. The issue is how do we get all humans up to speed and not wanting to kill each other. And that answer always seems to come back to one word: education. by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 914 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 8:15:03 AM (0+)
|
|
"To dream the impossible dream..."
I believe the quote you referenced may have been taken out of context and was directed at the 911Truther Movement and not humanity's aspirations. And the questioning of, "Is this true? Are those who want a better future thinking too big?" was a misapplication of the intent behind the original context where, I think, you were asking the quote's source how does one achieve a goal when obstacles exist at seemingly every level - click here . by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 9:42:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Wow, Tom !
For a short second there it almost sounded like you were endorsing Dubya's policies. Whew ! Had me goin' for a short while there. GW et al...... when it comes to 9/11, thinking small, or getting into details as I like to put it, will get you ....down a few very deep rabbit holes. Looking at it from a much boader perspective, you may see it much more clearly. Relax, read a humorous book or two and try to see the bigger picture. Details, such as the ones our embedded debunker throws at us every now and then only serve to confuse and to devide. Am I right ? Tell me I'm right. On second thought, generally speaking, thinking small can be a large step toward thinking big. Let's get small and think something real BIG. by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 12:56:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: nospellchecker
devide is out, divide comes in. I've been overseas too long. It shows. by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Energy was my 1980's focus
Yes, I was "the kid for President" with my independent campaign of 1984. But, there is a theme about energy that appeared in my politics in 1980. (This is what I have in common with Keith Olbermann: public attention at the age of 14.) What was my action in 1980? Well, the U.S. had just come through the second "energy crisis" of the 1970s. Meanwhile, I had been studying and researching things about the space program, science, and futuristic thought. I was a follower of Princeton's Dr. Gerard O'Neill, who had proposed some space colonies and started the Space Studies Institute, which I joined as a financial contributor. To create space colonies would likely be a financial boondoggle and a giant cost if the federal government was financing it. But, there is a different large space system, Solar Power Satellites, that would collect energy, redirect it to earth, and which could break even and yield a return on investment. 1980 is when I began to advocate that the U.S. should go for the Solar Power Satellite system. (As a freshman in high school, all I could swing was a petition, from my high school to Ronald Reagan, who has just been elected. However, the newspaper also reported the action and Hartford's CBS affiliate, Channel 3, had me into their studio to cut a TV editorial. The station ran a rotation of citizen editorials, and so I was able, on the air, to call for a strengthened space program with SPS.) The theme returned in my 1984 platform as the teenager running for U.S. President. In addition to SPS, I also recommended hydrogen and further research into fusion. "SPS / hydrogen" are both emission-free and therefore environmentally friendly sources of energy. Not only could emissions stop, but from a hydrogen engine, the byproduct -- the exhaust -- is H2O; clean, pure water. Over 20 years later, I continue to stand by my '84 platform. "SPS / hydrogen" continues to be my recommendation for America's energy direction. I am unswayed by ethanol, because it has ramifications that are uglier than what one would think from the first-blush enthusiasm about it. Ethanol is trouble, because arable land is scarce. (Ethanol competes with food, as for what can be grown on any given, limited piece of arable land. Food prices, and world hunger, could rise if we divert mass amounts of cropland to the production of ethanol.) It is a natural knee jerk response of some to criticize SPS as a "boondoggle." It would certainly be a large investment, but no less so than Reagan's Star Wars project -- something that is less technically feasible, less profitable, and more silly. SPS is a large investment, but the talk in the air is now saying, "Let's have an Apollo-like program to get the U.S. to energy independence." Well folks, SPS / hydrogen remains my recommendation. by John Kusumi (54 articles, 0 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 108 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 4:38:51 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
