Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Czechsinthemail who wrote (6928)	2/14/2004 12:18:32 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

That may have been true, though I would have wanted to see the fact and figures -- food production, for example, to bring all of China and Africa to our standard of living would be a huge challenge, given the limits of arable soil in the world and the overfishing of the world's oceans, I have my doubts, but I have no figures of proof either. But Fuller also had, as far as I know, no sense of global warming issues and the effects of pollutants on the ozone, etc. Think of 1972 cars and how much pollution they spewed out. Then think of every family on the globe having two of those cars in their garages and the amount of pollution they would spew in densely populated areas like India or China. The mind boggles! Not to mention the issue of where the ore to build all those cars would come from and the mining impacts. I suppose you'll suggest that it would be ore transferred from building tanks and guns to building cars, but I don't think the math works out. And it's one thing to try to generate energy, and another to use it -- most uses of energy produce heat. Refrigerators, for example. Electric motors, electric heaters. Even if the energy could be produce without burning fossil fuels, like damming rivers in Russia (with all the ecological costs that would entail) the use of all that energy would have enormous consequences that Fuller might not have understood. I am, at this point, based on my limited knowledge of the production of food and goods, the use of energy, etc., convinced that the world will never be able to have a global standard of living that even approximates what we have today, or even what we had in 1972. And even if it were, which I doubt, technically possible, it would require a degree of global cooperation and transformation from a race always at war (I don't believe there has been a single year, certainly not a single decade, in human history where there hasn't been a war going on somewhere on the globe) to a race having totally abandoned war and even the preparation for war. Which, sad to say, simply isn't going to happen until eugenics can produce a totally different race from the ones we have now.