Login |
New User
Books
COMING SEPT 09!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Toward a Type 1 civilization
by Michael Shermer, LA Times
Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22-2008jul22,0,5301697.story
Along with energy policy, political and economic systems must also evolve.
Our civilization is fast approaching a tipping point. Humans will need to make the transition from nonrenewable fossil fuels as the primary source of our energy to renewable energy sources that will allow us to flourish into the future. Failure to make that transformation will doom us to the endless political machinations and economic conflicts that have plagued civilization for the last half-millennium.
We need new technologies to be sure, but without evolved political and economic systems, we cannot become what we must. And what is that? A Type 1 civilization. Let me explain.
In a 1964 article on searching for extraterrestrial civilizations, the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev suggested using radio telescopes to detect energy signals from other solar systems in which there might be civilizations of three levels of advancement: Type 1 can harness all of the energy of its home planet; Type 2 can harvest all of the power of its sun; and Type 3 can master the energy from its entire galaxy.
Based on our energy efficiency at the time, in 1973 the astronomer Carl Sagan estimated that Earth represented a Type 0.7 civilization on a Type 0 to Type 1 scale. (More current assessments put us at 0.72.) As the Kardashevian scale is logarithmic -- where any increase in power consumption requires a huge leap in power production -- we have a ways before 1.0.
Fossil fuels won't get us there. Renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal are a good start, and coupled to nuclear power could eventually get us to Type 1.
Yet the hurdles are not solely -- or even primarily -- technological ones. We have a proven track record of achieving remarkable scientific solutions to survival problems -- as long as there is the political will and economic opportunities that allow the solutions to flourish. In other words, we need a Type 1 polity and economy, along with the technology, in order to become a Type 1 civilization.
We are close. If we use the Kardashevian scale to plot humankind's progress, it shows how far we've come in the long history of our species from Type 0, and it leads us to see what a Type 1 civilization might be like:
Type 0.1: Fluid groups of hominids living in Africa. Technology consists of primitive stone tools. Intra-group conflicts are resolved through dominance hierarchy, and between-group violence is common.
Type 0.2: Bands of roaming hunter-gatherers that form kinship groups, with a mostly horizontal political system and egalitarian economy.
Type 0.3: Tribes of individuals linked through kinship but with a more settled and agrarian lifestyle. The beginnings of a political hierarchy and a primitive economic division of labor.
Type 0.4: Chiefdoms consisting of a coalition of tribes into a single hierarchical political unit with a dominant leader at the top, and with the beginnings of significant economic inequalities and a division of labor in which lower-class members produce food and other products consumed by non-producing upper-class members.
Type 0.5: The state as a political coalition with jurisdiction over a well-defined geographical territory and its corresponding inhabitants, with a mercantile economy that seeks a favorable balance of trade in a win-lose game against other states.
Type 0.6: Empires extend their control over peoples who are not culturally, ethnically or geographically within their normal jurisdiction, with a goal of economic dominance over rival empires.
Type 0.7: Democracies that divide power over several institutions, which are run by elected officials voted for by some citizens. The beginnings of a market economy.
Type 0.8: Liberal democracies that give the vote to all citizens. Markets that begin to embrace a nonzero, win-win economic game through free trade with other states.
Type 0.9: Democratic capitalism, the blending of liberal democracy and free markets, now spreading across the globe through democratic movements in developing nations and broad trading blocs such as the European Union.
Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the franchise.
The forces at work that could prevent us from making the great leap forward to a Type 1 civilization are primarily political and economic. The resistance by nondemocratic states to turning power over to the people is considerable, especially in theocracies whose leaders would prefer we all revert to Type 0.4 chiefdoms. The opposition toward a global economy is substantial, even in the industrialized West, where economic tribalism still dominates the thinking of most politicians, intellectuals and citizens.
For thousands of years, we have existed in a zero-sum tribal world in which a gain for one tribe, state or nation meant a loss for another tribe, state or nation -- and our political and economic systems have been designed for use in that win-lose world. But we have the opportunity to live in a win-win world and become a Type 1 civilization by spreading liberal democracy and free trade, in which the scientific and technological benefits will flourish. I am optimistic because in the evolutionist's deep time and the historian's long view, the trend lines toward achieving Type 1 status tick inexorably upward.
That is change we can believe in.
Michael Shermer is an adjunct professor in the School of Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate University, the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific American. His latest book is "The Mind of the Market."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22-2008jul22,0,5301697.story
Along with energy policy, political and economic systems must also evolve.
Our civilization is fast approaching a tipping point. Humans will need to make the transition from nonrenewable fossil fuels as the primary source of our energy to renewable energy sources that will allow us to flourish into the future. Failure to make that transformation will doom us to the endless political machinations and economic conflicts that have plagued civilization for the last half-millennium.
We need new technologies to be sure, but without evolved political and economic systems, we cannot become what we must. And what is that? A Type 1 civilization. Let me explain.
In a 1964 article on searching for extraterrestrial civilizations, the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev suggested using radio telescopes to detect energy signals from other solar systems in which there might be civilizations of three levels of advancement: Type 1 can harness all of the energy of its home planet; Type 2 can harvest all of the power of its sun; and Type 3 can master the energy from its entire galaxy.
Based on our energy efficiency at the time, in 1973 the astronomer Carl Sagan estimated that Earth represented a Type 0.7 civilization on a Type 0 to Type 1 scale. (More current assessments put us at 0.72.) As the Kardashevian scale is logarithmic -- where any increase in power consumption requires a huge leap in power production -- we have a ways before 1.0.
Fossil fuels won't get us there. Renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal are a good start, and coupled to nuclear power could eventually get us to Type 1.
Yet the hurdles are not solely -- or even primarily -- technological ones. We have a proven track record of achieving remarkable scientific solutions to survival problems -- as long as there is the political will and economic opportunities that allow the solutions to flourish. In other words, we need a Type 1 polity and economy, along with the technology, in order to become a Type 1 civilization.
We are close. If we use the Kardashevian scale to plot humankind's progress, it shows how far we've come in the long history of our species from Type 0, and it leads us to see what a Type 1 civilization might be like:
Type 0.1: Fluid groups of hominids living in Africa. Technology consists of primitive stone tools. Intra-group conflicts are resolved through dominance hierarchy, and between-group violence is common.
Type 0.2: Bands of roaming hunter-gatherers that form kinship groups, with a mostly horizontal political system and egalitarian economy.
Type 0.3: Tribes of individuals linked through kinship but with a more settled and agrarian lifestyle. The beginnings of a political hierarchy and a primitive economic division of labor.
Type 0.4: Chiefdoms consisting of a coalition of tribes into a single hierarchical political unit with a dominant leader at the top, and with the beginnings of significant economic inequalities and a division of labor in which lower-class members produce food and other products consumed by non-producing upper-class members.
Type 0.5: The state as a political coalition with jurisdiction over a well-defined geographical territory and its corresponding inhabitants, with a mercantile economy that seeks a favorable balance of trade in a win-lose game against other states.
Type 0.6: Empires extend their control over peoples who are not culturally, ethnically or geographically within their normal jurisdiction, with a goal of economic dominance over rival empires.
Type 0.7: Democracies that divide power over several institutions, which are run by elected officials voted for by some citizens. The beginnings of a market economy.
Type 0.8: Liberal democracies that give the vote to all citizens. Markets that begin to embrace a nonzero, win-win economic game through free trade with other states.
Type 0.9: Democratic capitalism, the blending of liberal democracy and free markets, now spreading across the globe through democratic movements in developing nations and broad trading blocs such as the European Union.
Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the franchise.
The forces at work that could prevent us from making the great leap forward to a Type 1 civilization are primarily political and economic. The resistance by nondemocratic states to turning power over to the people is considerable, especially in theocracies whose leaders would prefer we all revert to Type 0.4 chiefdoms. The opposition toward a global economy is substantial, even in the industrialized West, where economic tribalism still dominates the thinking of most politicians, intellectuals and citizens.
For thousands of years, we have existed in a zero-sum tribal world in which a gain for one tribe, state or nation meant a loss for another tribe, state or nation -- and our political and economic systems have been designed for use in that win-lose world. But we have the opportunity to live in a win-win world and become a Type 1 civilization by spreading liberal democracy and free trade, in which the scientific and technological benefits will flourish. I am optimistic because in the evolutionist's deep time and the historian's long view, the trend lines toward achieving Type 1 status tick inexorably upward.
That is change we can believe in.
Michael Shermer is an adjunct professor in the School of Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate University, the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific American. His latest book is "The Mind of the Market."
Comments 51 - 65 of 65 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #219387 by Goldy on July 26, 2008 at 10:39 pm
kkelly, from wayyyy back when...
I think there will always be large groups of backward people no matter how far scientifically and socially the rest of the world will go.
Steve then said (about another comment, I must admit
We have evolved self-awareness and the ability to share ideas and plan for the future. We have the ability to transcend the abilities of our individual brains in many areas, not just science and reason.
OK, thought I, fair enough. Then I read the papers...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2461830/Killing-for-religion-is-justified,-say-third-of-Muslim-students.html
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2461838/Homosexual-bishops-face-Anglican-Church-ban.html
I despair at times...
Edit - OK, OK, it IS the Telegraph...
Other Comments by Goldy
53. Comment #219404 by DalaiDrivel on July 26, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I'd wager D'Arcy, SPS, and zbob are on the right track, whether that has anything to do with my being a liberal, anti-capitalist idealist or not.I will say that a friend of mine who recently took a trip to Guatemala and returned reciting the mantra "They have nothing, but they have everything. We have everything, but we have nothing," never seemed to draw the inevitable conclusion- which is that the fact that Third Worlders can be happy and we seemingly cannot indicates that Money truly has nothing to do with happiness.
I've spent some time recently attempting to imagine a society without currency at all. I haven't got very far. But a society without money would be without the segregating status symbol of our times, as ostentatious luxury was in the past, and with any luck, it will be the last such class-defining symbol that the human race suffers.
I do think the future of governance rests with a global body and the abolition of nation states. I would also wager that communities will be numerous and small, as well as independent and self-sufficient, instead of few and large. Information will travel efficiently between them to provide the illusion of one large global metropolis. (EDIT: an allusion to "The Global Village.")
Those who have said that free trade favours what sells over what is truly beneficial and does nothing to intentionally improve culture, art, science and generally anything that matters in life, to put it quite bluntly, are utterly correct. There inlies the danger to humanity.
I've found it interesting that the Soviet Union, despite being such a depraved moral state, achieved heights of scientific greatness matched only by its ideological and economic antithesis.
It has been said, too often, "Money makes the world go around."
Why do I feel that we need to remind ourselves, and take comfort in, the fact that this is physically impossible (as is the corollary, that "No money makes the world stay still")?
Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
54. Comment #219578 by TranshumanAtheist on July 27, 2008 at 9:15 am
But we have the opportunity to live in a win-win world and become a Type 1 civilization by spreading liberal democracy and free trade,
This suggests a number of possible objections. One, what if liberal democracies decide to regulate trade, as often happens in the real world? Would Shermer then favor undemocratic governments that interfere less with the market? For example, a number of free market economists displayed a crush on Augusto Pinochet for the way he ran Chile in the 1970's and 1980's. Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected regime representing socialist parties and organized labor, cut taxes and deregulated Chile's economy while terrorizing Chileans who expressed progressive political views.
And two, Shermer assumes a progress narrative from the Enlightenment that has come under attack lately by the random walk/black swan criticism. If we got to our current situation through a series of essentially random events, then no reason prevents us from heading away from current trends through other random events. Nothing about the future of democracy, free markets, atheism or becoming a Kardashev Type I civilization looks "inevitable" in this view.
Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist
55. Comment #219821 by Sarmatae1 on July 27, 2008 at 3:08 pm
would like some -intelligent- comments on this. Am i being misled?
I have a close freind that has for some years tried to convince me there are "forces" working worldwide that are trying to bring about a "New world order" and unify all governmental and economic systems. He stated that in the U.S.A this is being accomplished with the federal reserve central banking system and a movement to "A North Americal Union" that would eventually usurp the constitution. The first time I saw a newcast like the one that follows I got a sinking feeling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI
Keep in mind he was telling me these things 10 years ago at the least.
For 10 years on the occasions when we discussed this subject. I had the same reaction to these conspiracy theories that you all may have. Skepticism. I consider my friend to be more intelligent than I and a swell guy to boot. This one idea that he had I always though odd. I always thought he was seeing cohesional intent by some secret power where there were more mundane reasons for what was happening.
Example:
Immediately after the attacks on 9/11 occured when we were talking at his BBQ he stated "This(the attack) is an excuse to push some politcal agenda to attack someone." I replied "Well thats not a prophetic statement. Of course we're going to attack someone. The people responsible for the attack." He then stated "It will be shown 50 years from now when nobody cares, that the poeple we attack will not be the ones responsible."
It hasnt been 50 years but recently I had to concede after all this time debating with him that he was correct in this initial statement. He implies that it didnt take 50 years becuase "they" were sloppy and have not completely understood new advances in information dissemination.
He recently corrected my thinking, that the price of oil is rising uncontrollably and we need to take steps to correct this. He says that "something" wants the general public to believe the price of oil is rising. So when we "have to do somehting about it" we will endorse any actions of our government. When in fact the price of oil is not rising. He showed me quite simply how this is a misconception that is deliberately put out to the public. I actually found a very short Utube that explains this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsEvb1WsIY
This idea that its the price of oil that is rising is deliberately pointing away from the fact that it is the central banking system and corrupt interests that are actually responsible for the fuel price crisis. He asks me "Can everyone be wrong about the cause of fuel prices or has this been deliberately put forward to shadow blame and agendas of war?
My fiends asserts this "I think you have the wrong impression of what I am stating as the intent of this unifying "force". I am not saying there there is a conspiracy that wishes to work against the greater portion of the population(the common person). I am saying that "they" work to gather as much money and power as they can, if in doing so the rest of us are fracked then so be it."(He is fond of this Battlestar Galactica nomenclature).
He also points to the present government pushing an agenda in Iraq with eyes upon Iran and the rest of the middle east. He states this is a deliberate ploy to finance both sides of a coming series of wars.
You can see this clearly if you realize that the war on terror and the war on drugs are interconnected and both will not be won on the fronts they are being faught on. In Iraq, Afganistan with terrorism. On the citizenry of this country with the war on drugs. It is ironic that we have military forces in Afganistan to fight terrorism but are ordered to ignore the huge fields of illegal drugs that finance this terrorism.
The publics eyes are being deliberately diverted away from the real playgrounds of those who are financing both Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations of this type and the United States Industrial military machine.
For example you very rarely see mass media news stories about Turkey. Turkey is the veritable playground in which both sides of these conflicts may enact their agendas throughout the world. Al-Queda by growing their drugs in afganistan and selling and laundering the money through Turkey. The United States by U.S military leaders using turkey as a yard sale for their influence on the D.O.D and the United States industrial military machine.
If you wish to read some of the interesting accusations go see what Sibel Edmonds has to say about it here specifically PART 1 AND PART 2 The foreign agent factor and The auctioning of former statesmen.
http://www.justacitizen.com/
It is long but I gaurantee well worth the read. After I had read those two pages I got that sinking feeling in my gut.
My friend asks me:
How is it so easy to mislead the public?
Why if the intent is to win the war on terror and drugs are we not attacking the real people and places who finance them?
Is there a cohesive force trying to create wars so they may finance both sides?
I cannot say that Personally I believe that, but he has been right on many occasions about things such as these(I'm not remembering the hits and forgetting his misses). My friend and others such as Sibel Edmonds has gotten the following reaction from me.
(raised eyebrow) interesting.
He doesnt believe it has anyhting to do with well known groups like the skull and bones or illuminati. He says "Those are social groups. nothing more than a way for elite in society to make more business connections."
He sounds so reasonable to me. I am sometimes confused. So please comment, are these things the machinations of people trying to make a "New world order" or am I being indoctrinated into an icoherent thought process?
This is just a very brief summary of some conversations we have had over the years. I hope it gets his view across without too much distortion being very brief.
Other Comments by Sarmatae1
56. Comment #219829 by Goldy on July 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I have a close freind that has for some years tried to convince me there are "forces" working worldwide that are trying to bring about a "New world order" and unify all governmental and economic systems
I believe this "cartel" that your friend speaks of has existed for the longest time!
I don't think there is any "force" behind anything apart from greed and market forces. Oil went up, yes, but then housing was in free fall and banks going bust left, right and centre. Had to try and invest in something to get money. Oil and crops were a good commodity to invest in.
I don't think there is a "New World Order" to worry about. If they were that powerful and successful, they'd be in power now.
Other Comments by Goldy
57. Comment #219902 by Sarmatae1 on July 27, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Goldy:
"Oil went up, yes, but then housing was in free fall and banks going bust left, right and centre. Had to try and invest in something to get money. Oil and crops were a good commodity to invest in."
Ah, but the price of oil has not gone up with any significance in 50 years to this day. The full explaination being on the u-tube video I posted above.
It is the dollar that has gone down in value not the price of oil that has gone up. Therefore it takes many more dollars to buy the same amount of oil. IF you were buying oil with something that doesnt lose its value. Say gold or silver then you can still buy the same amount of oil with the same amount of gold or silver that you did 50 years ago.(with some small variation in prices) But we are paying more for it in dollars. Because dollars always lose value it would appear that everything is going up in price. Hence the backward terminology inflation(of every commodity). It is in fact not "inflation of everything else, But deflation of the value of the dollar.
Watching those broadcasts about a north american union and talk of the amero dollar without the ok of the american people and congress makes me very wary and suspicious. Who exactly is pushing this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98&feature=related
Other Comments by Sarmatae1
58. Comment #219905 by Goldy on July 27, 2008 at 6:25 pm
It is the US Dollar going down which pushed prices up, but many also say speculation pushed the price up beyond what it should have been. One reason OPEC didn't see a need to increase production, apparently.
Same with grain - as well as a drought in Australia, ne of the major producers.
It is, I understand, not entirely coincidental that everything went tits up ask the credit crisis occurred. That seemed more like bad investment decisions more than a world wide power cartel....
Other Comments by Goldy
59. Comment #219907 by Goldy on July 27, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Watching those broadcasts about a north american union and talk of the amero dollar without the ok of the american people and congress makes me very wary and suspicious. Who exactly is pushing this?Somebody wanting to make money? Anyway, if it is so scarily secretive, how come you and I know about it now...? Not that secret anymore.... ;-D
Other Comments by Goldy
60. Comment #219909 by PeterMcKellar on July 27, 2008 at 6:40 pm
A couple of thoughts on this article. Firstly, the energy scale (the formal Type 1 classification) is quite separate to the proposed political equivalent or "facilitating" political systems detailed in the article. The first is quite objective and quantitative. The latter is not and seems to be the Sherman's own scale for a political based scale to parallel Sagan's.Having made the distinction, I tend to agree with the author. I also see this as being one of the most visionary statements I have ever seen in the popular press. Maybe it is pretty high level and offers no solutions, but at least it provides a necessary framework and indicates some directions.
Also, when looking at the Type 1.0 definition I see no real indication of any USA style democracy, nor does it preclude some form of democratic communism, socialist democracies or any of these melded systems. To me I see it more like an "ethical anarchy" with little central control but a high level of legally enforcable consensus.
As for the New World Order, it is there, but in the evolutionary sense that Malthus described. It isn't some club with a secret handshake but the general thrust of a bunch of greedy people trying to out-compete each other. They reinforce their own hates and agendas and use these to justify and finance the next corporate take-over, suppression of competitive ideas, scapegoating and war. Its not even limited to any particular religion but just to the self-appointed "right-thinking people".
I too must agree with Fredrik Svanberg. Things are far from lost. We are walking a cusp, on one side is the slide into another Dark Ages, the other is a potential golden age with local automated food and biofuel production, plenty of fresh water, non-polluting sustainable systems and a flourishing and diverse ecosystem (albeit somewhat warmer).
Nations will remain as political and cultural entities - some functions are still required, but control will be in the hands of individuals working together to forward the win-win zero-plus model, rather than banding together in tribes to gain advantage over the next guy. The EU is an emerging example - each country still exists but most trade and travel restrictions have been removed. The internet can make any cottage industry an multinational business. Today anyone can become a media outlet. As we take on more and more of the high level political and legal systems as individuals, the need for centralisation is decreased. This would tend to favour smaller communities and more diversity - with a central focus and general set of social rules derived from a values derived from the wider community (probably via high speed internet debate and vote).
This is my vision of the future. One with hope, not Shaka's hopelessness. Big Die-offs may happen, but that doesn't mean they must, nor does it mean they are desirable or that the end result produces a generally fitter species. Neither Darwin or Malthus really provide any insight into which way it goes, just that evolution will respond to the conditions, no specific predictions are claimed for what the environment will be at any given time or place or what quirk evolution takes to meet the demand - frequently significantly different from what we would have predicted, sometimes totally unexpected. Good, bad, progress etc don't come into it. If we desire a certain outcome, we must expend energy to reverse the effects of entropy (or let them take off and experience a die-off).
Other Comments by PeterMcKellar
61. Comment #219919 by theonlybap on July 27, 2008 at 7:00 pm
zbob --Forgive me if I was unclear. I do not mean the word "selfish" in common sense of the word -- that being acting to promote the self with disregard to others. I used it, for lack of knowing a better word, to mean "having one's best-interest in mind." However, I suppose "best-interest" isn't exactly what I mean either. It's just that people will always act in a way that supports what they value more. There are altruistic acts, but I do not think that there is such thing as an altruistic motive. While I agree we can recognize our negative thoughts and transcend our natural tendencies, I do not think we can act in a way that goes against something we value. There will always be something the individual gains, material or otherwise. Every decision we make is rooted in satisfying some personal need or desire, and thus essentially "selfish."
You and I both desire a better future for our descendants, and we want to work towards that goal. However, it is still our desire, and whether that aligns with others' desires or not, it is still what we think, and not necessarily them.
I hope I that clarifies what I am saying. I sometimes worry I am not as eloquent as I could/should be, so please let me know if you need further clarification.
Other Comments by theonlybap
62. Comment #219928 by Sarmatae1 on July 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Goldy:
"Somebody wanting to make money? Anyway, if it is so scarily secretive, how come you and I know about it now...? Not that secret anymore.... ;-D"
The only reason I knew about the North American Union. Is that my friend told me about it. I consider myself in touch and fairly well informed about current events. How he found out I dont know. Doesnt that in itself seem odd. Something as big as a North American Union is not reported by nearly all major media outlets. Which my friend points out are owned by the same big business interests that are using our executive branch(Bush and Cheney) to push this through without the ok of the American people or oversight by congress. Now that I know how difficult it is to find out facts about this NAU happening the silence of the media on the subject is screaminingly loud.
Like I said i'm not of the mind of conspiracy theorist but the silence about this NAU is curious indeed.
It is not even the job of the executive branch of the government to be involved in things of this nature by the way.
Other Comments by Sarmatae1
63. Comment #219930 by Goldy on July 27, 2008 at 7:57 pm
The only reason I knew about the North American Union. Is that my friend told me about it. How he found out I dont know. Doesnt that in itself seem odd. Something as big as a North American Union is not reported by nearly all major media outlets.Your friend must have found out from somewhere. And now you, me adn everyone else reading this knows. I'll bet if you type this stuff into Google, there'll be reams and reams of information.
The silence might be curious for conspiratorial reasons...or it might be silent because...well, there's nothing to report...
Other Comments by Goldy
64. Comment #220026 by Fredrik Svanberg on July 28, 2008 at 1:22 am
Christopher Davis:"You are not disputing Shaka. You are disputing Malthus...and to do that successfully, you are going to have to post something better than you have so far."
Then Shaka would have to start making more sense of his source material. Either way Malthus lived 150 years ago. I'd dare say that many of his ideas are outdated, especially on food production.
Here's just the first article I grabbed from a google search: http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/7828-en.html
Other Comments by Fredrik Svanberg
65. Comment #220504 by unclejohn on July 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Michael Schermer misses a major point in getting to his Type 1 civilization:His free market fantasy is so Type 0.6 and so unsuited to actual civilization.
Other Comments by unclejohn
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
51. Comment #219367 by utelme on July 26, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Comment#219032 Dr DoctorSorry, don't believe in the bogeyman. But if you mean that I think that Iran is led by Islamic lunatics ( Ahmmadaboutjihad and his islamic cronies) and that his threat to Israel is merely a joke then I think that you're wrong. I think that religious fundamentalism that considers the Western world Satanic (for you, bogeyman) and welcomes the concept of martyrdom, coupled with nuclear weapons is a very scary concept. My point was that a nuclear conflagration was possible way before everyone dies of starvation as a cause of nature. This does not mean that I think that global warming and the hogging of resources by the West is not a problem.
Other Comments by utelme