Folks, I'm as taken with the romance of "simpler", more natural oriented lifestyles as any. The problem is, as our Mr. Decker has brought up, is that it takes a certain amount of technology to support any type of agricultural economy.

Frankly, I'm middle aged and too many things hurt too often to really want to engage in small scale agriculture except as a dire need. I'm not talking gardening here, I mean subsistence farming....

Instead of scaling back and possibly never reaching a true technological society again, possibly due to resource depletion, why cannot we consider heading "outwards"?

Our solar system contains immense resources. In the asteroids, in the belts of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter, are immense amounts of metals, water ice, organics (methane, etc.). In space, huge solar arrays for smelting metals, growing microchips and running chemical plants can be built without ever pouring poisons into our biosphere.

Conceivably, even farms, to reduce the increasing pressure on our globe, could be envisioned.

What a grand vision this could be! What an outlet for dreams, for energies, for ambitions! We could aim at raising all of the earth's population which wished it to a decent standard of living. We could eliminate the gutting of our planet. It could become almost a park, with biospheres restored using the wealth from space to replace the looting of our planet.

If we, at this point in our history, turn our sight inward, we may never have the chance again.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 06, 1999

Answers

Jon,

A grand vision indeed! Any ideas on what would be required, realistically, to bring it about? Arguably, one of the reasons we're experiencing this Y2K mess is that we haven't figured out how to control the technology we've got. Why should be believe that we'll be any wiser if we decide to head "outwards"?

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 06, 1999.

Seen on a bumper sticker:

Earth First - We'll Strip Mine the Other Planets Later

-- (oh @ so . true), August 06, 1999.

I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed, worrying about what would replace the Cold War system. Naturally, I was happy for all those people that were "freed" from the "tyranny of communism," but at the same time I realized that it would have major implications for "the economy."

Frankly, we're still looking for enemies to fear, and the Chinese are fast becoming the prime candidate. Once a nation gets into a "war economy," it's a tough habit to kick. Jon, I think you're on to something, though.

I remember at time of the collapse, talking to people about what could replace the "war economy." Collectively, we came to the conclusion that a "space economy" was the only logical choice.

What is a "war economy," afterall? A nation or nations spend incredible amounts of money and resources making stuff that's only purpose is basically to be destroyed. Or, hopefully, not used at all. Waste.

A "space economy" would spend huge amounts of money and resources on stuff that goes out and mines the asteroids, or whatever, in order to get more stuff to make more stuff to mine asteroids. Something like that. Huge amounts of waste can be generated, but taken "off-planet." A global push to "exploit" the resources of the solar system would create more wealth (and waste) in a few years than all the "war economies" throughout history.

While I think it's a shame that we humans live in such a wasteful way, I don't have any illusions that we are going to suddenly stop being "Takers" and become "Leavers" because it may be the right way to live. Therefore, I think that switching from a "war economy" to a "space economy" may be our only hope. We certainly have the technology and ability to do this, but do we have the will?

Barring Y2K being a "civilization killer," we will have to do something differently, and pretty damn quickly, if we want to avoid ruining the planet for ourselves. I think that if Y2K turns out to be anything less than about an 8, globalism will be the order of the 21st century. Hopefully, without major conflicts with the Chinese, Islam, or between "trade blocs." Like Jon suggests, we need to look outward.

I believe our only (realistic, considering human shortsightedness) chance is to adopt a "space economy." Besides, it may be our "destiny."

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), August 06, 1999.

Ed:

I have no real hope that we will be wiser in the future. I do feel strongly that if we, as a species, do not move onward and outward, we will eventually be back in a village economy, ruled in a feudalistic society, brought about by resource depletion, ecosystem poisoning, possibly war. War is especially likely if global warming significantly changes world climate and rainfall patterns.

A hungry nation with nothing to lose is a fearsome thing. Think North Korea.

With luck, and some common sense, we can create more opportunities out there for the bold, the ruthless, the driven, than they would have here.

We must learn to work WITH human nature AS IT IS, not bemoan how "nice" things could be if only people were "better".

People are not afraid to suffer and die for dreams. What kills the spirit is no hope. No chance of improvement, no chance of your children living a better life. A hopeless daily grind of falling further behind, with death a welcome relief.

We have climbed on the *technology tiger*. It is running at full speed. How do you get off? Darn if I know. Maybe just hang on for the ride.....

For further ideas along these lines, the author Jerry Pournelle is a good source.

Ed, as to how we can procede, there are several ways. The moon will probably be needed as a stepping stone. It has the same advantages as outer planetary bodies, but it is next door.

It may have water. It has mass. It has sunshine. It has hard vacuum. With sunshine, we can produce electricity. With vacuum, many chemical processes are possible (distillations especially). We don't know exactly what minerals are available on the moon, but we can learn to work and build with them.

The moon's gravity is only one sixth that of the earth. Using technology such as electro-magnetic catapults, laser launching, nuclear rocket engines, we can move from the moon outwards. Bring ice asteroids to the moon for more water. Drop them on Mars by the thousands to rehydrate that surface.

We are a restless species. We MUST have an outlet for that energy. It will not go away.

How can we get there? The same techniques as described above. If worse comes to worse, we can use the old atomic weapons to power an explosive propelled ship up. It can carry a LOT of mass. Enough to make a one way trip to the moon with an entire embryonic colony.

It can be done. If this STUPID example of human dithering, procrastination, and ineptitude we call Y2K does not destroy technical civilization, we can move toward the stars. Or we can give up. I don't see any true middle way.

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), August 06, 1999.

Uhh...Hellooo Jon. I get the impression that space and planetary travel are your particular passions, but I thought Ed was talking about how we should go about surviving some level 4 to level 9 kind of y2k situation, in which case major disruptions to power, banking and communications will have occurred. Under such circumstances, it hardly seems likely that rocket launcing and moon colonization will be of much concern to people struggling to just survive. Having just discovered this feature of Ed's site, I have not had a chance to really think about the "post y2k" scene and how it should be handled but I can't see moon colonization as having any significant priority. We have to be secure about food, water, shelter, clothing and warmth first.

-- Myron Bevans (mbevans@bc.sympatico.ca), August 07, 1999.

Hmmmmm, Ed and all,

Has anyone read the book Spiritwalker, messages from the future, by Hank Wesselman? Look it up on www.amazon.com for a review. According to Wesselman, we may all be headed back to a tribal existence. Sound terrible? Tell that to the Australian Aborigines, who think *we* are nuts, and their culture is many thousand years older than ours. Go figure.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 07, 1999.

Myron:

Have to plan for all eventualities. At least I try to. We may not hit a 9-10 (hope not!!). We may be forced to this in a search for new resources.

I think we are all aware that severity of Y2K is liable to vary widely from place to place. Even if things go Milne or Infomagic, there may remain an enclave or six of technology. Unfortunately, I don't really see these reaching out their hand in fellowship to their distressed brethren. More likely outward conquest for resources.

Ed, the path of technology we took this last 50 years is not the only one. Perhaps, with the experience of Y2K deeply etched in the minds and spirits of a couple of generations, we can create more robust technologies, just as you have envisioned more careful programming. Technology does not have to mean JIT and fragile supply lines.

Maybe a slowing of adopting a new gee whiz just for the sake of the new. This idea of progress we espouse is not really "normal" in the longer span of human history.

As I am doing in my personal life, perhaps we can go back to a slower building, a little more time for personal. Test the new to make sure that it is an improvement over the old.

Just some thoughts over coffee this morning.

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), August 08, 1999.

My thoughts in this area is and please do not take this wrong, but I am actually going to look forward to the Y2K changes. Yes, it will be shocking for some individuals that weren't prepared or decided to laugh at the thought of stockpiling supplies of food, water, etc. (Like some of my friends have laughed right in my face.....I wonder if they'll be laughing when it finally hits them all at once, then they'll remember my concern for them when I decided to get prepared) All the evidence is there regarding the truth of Y2K, it's only a choice in our heads to stay on the fence or do something with action. I have already moved to the mountains and was forced to use my generator in the middle of July!! It was due to a lighting storm and after 26 hours of no power, I proved to myself (and I'm a single woman) that this was a "small taste" of what is ahead. Also, I have purchased a propane refrigerator so there is one less thing to plug into the generator. This was July folks and it couldn't of been any worse, besides being one of the hottest days when this happened! Believe me that air conditioner was heaven.

I know that Y2K won't hit until January, 2000, but think for one moment if it is a 8 or 9? This might perhaps go into Summer months and if your prepared or at least trying to be, the "Air-Conditioner" will be your best friend in temps of 100 +.

I can visually see in my mind the general public, that live off credit cards, stocks, mutual funds & believing in the "banking industry". That will be a wake up call for those individuals with egos coming out of their pockets. They will say, "Why didn't anyone tell us"? See my point.

With all the technology of pagers, cell phones, computers (emails), telephones, this will be a nice break. I also would like to comment that I believe in Almighty God and I believe he has a purpose for this event. Yes, it won't be the same, but in the end those of us with that faith can see the positive side of this.

-- Renee Wilson (avenues@volcano.net), August 08, 1999.

Only the rich and the elite would have a chance to get off this planet. Besides, what makes anyone think that we could be the caretakers of another planet when we have destroyed the one we are on? We've been in the space program now since the late 50's and the only place man has landed is on the moon. Let's be realistic here, I am afraid our dreams of flying to another planet in hopes of raising a new civilzation is exactly what it is, a dream. When you speak of gutting this planet, we all have benefited from it and we continue to do so everyday. I dream of the day when people will stop having children that they cannot possibly care for. And when the earth can no longer sustain the multitudes it will be time for all life to end.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), August 08, 1999.

Bardou,I suggest that you pick up a copy of "Expanded Worlds of RAH" (Robert Heinlein) and look at the Earth - Mars - Earth calculations for a constant accel of about 1 GEE.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 10, 1999.

I like the bumper sticker: You want to give God a laugh? Tell him your plans.

-- Dor O'Neill (oneill@stratos.net), August 10, 1999.

The exploitation and oppotunities of an apparently unlimited frontier (space, moon, or whatever) is a hope for those with ambitious vision. If Y2K were to be a non event, what would be necessary in order for this generation to seriously evaluate a return on investment for moon operations? If Y2K hits around an 8, is this generation capable of the kind of self-sacrifice necessary to make such a costly assessment?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 24, 1999.

Have you ever considered that the press toward consumerism and greater and greater technology is symptomatic of a stressed and neurotic society? Like an eating disorder, the apetitite for technology seeks to fill the emptiness modern people feel from lack of meaningful realtionships, fullfilling work and spiritual context.

Sorry, Jon, but I don't believe the cure is more technology. I think "Mother" should keep us at home until we are healthier to the point that we won't infect our playmates in the universe.

-- anon (anon@anon.com), August 24, 1999.