Re: Tilting At Windmills

From: Dez Akin (dezakin_at_usa.net)
Date: 11/30/04 

Date: 30 Nov 2004 01:09:35 -0800

fumblus <fumblus@nospamYahoo.com> wrote in message news:<41aba8a4$0$3603$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>...
> >Imagine if ancient Egypt had generated a large amount of toxic and
> >>mutagenic waste product that had to be stored securely for a hundred
> >>millennia. What if ancient Rome did? Imagine being the ancestor of
> >>people from a civilisation who left you a legacy of waste that is
> >>absolutely no use to you, and that you simply *must* continue to
> >>maintain, expensively, for a time frame that might as well be forever.
> >
> > I'm imagining being an ancestor of a civilization large and
> > economically powerful enough to generate such waste and not find a use
> > for it. It would have to be quite rich, and unless in fell in some
> > unbelievable catastrophy, that would make me quite rich.
>
> If we already have a use for it, why are we storing it?
> If not, if we already have solid plans for using it, where are the
> proposed re-use technologies?

Its cheaper to store it than use it today. Its unlikely to remain that
way forever.

> Egypt, Rome, Greece and other ancient civilizations were all "rich".
> They exploited various resources to their own betterment. A Pharaoh or
> an Emperor or a privileged Citizen, enjoying the fruits of their(?)
> labours, would have had no concept of their civilisation failing and
> falling to ruin. But fail they did. Even the Third Reich was meant to
> last for 1000 years.
>
> Where is the trickle-down wealth from these defunct civilisations?
> Their legacies may enrich our lives culturally, but their material
> wealth died with them.

I'm afraid thats just not the case. The per-capita wealth has been
climbing since the days of ancient rome, built on every minor
innovation that comes to pass. Several hundred years ago, the rate of
that economic growth hit an 'interesting' milestone.

> You have no reason to assume that the same won't happen to the current
> empire. Dark ages happen. Ice ages happen. Great Big Honking
> Asteroids happen.

I have many reasons to assume that 'the same' won't happen to modern
civilization. First is no analogue of the industrial revolution has
ever occured in ancient history. The wealth and knowledge of six
billion individuals isn't snuffed out by decay (that isn't occuring I
might add) any 'traumatic event' that throws human civilization into a
'dark age' is likely to _obliterate_ humanity. You would be hard
pressed to fine tune your disaster to let only a few million of the
least educated on the planet survive.

The other reason is the rate of economic and technological growth is
_so_ fast that you will likely have machines of godlike power and
alien motivation beyond several hundred years governing. All the
trends point towards it, and little save a _very_ bloody global war
(total, not a few political crazies as we have today) will derail that
trend for more than a decade.

People like to say that history repeats itself, but it doesn't; Its
politics that tends to repeat itself, if you try to really fudge it
in. There's never been an analogue of the industrial revolution or the
very rapid growth in information technology. Very likely we will have
artificial minds sometime in the next 40-80 years, and after that the
future becomes unrecognizable, but definately not primitive.

> But this current generation will all be dead, so why should we give a
> toss, hey?

Well, specifically this generation, the next and several after that.

> >>It's the pinnacle of arrogance to offload your short-term problem
> >>solving into the distant future. What's more, "human civilization" will
> >>be nothing like it is now in just 1000 years. How do you convey the
> >>message "don't touch this crap, and if you know what's good for you make
> >>sure noone else does either" to people who won't even speak your language?
> >
> >
> > Ah. So first you are assuming that civilization will be
> > unrecognizable, and yet, so primative that dealing with waste is a
> > major concern, that the history will be so obscured (despite modern
> > meticulous record keeping) that some poor sod will stumble in on it
> > and get a bit sick. What exactly do we owe this tragic non-future?
>
> I'm not assuming anything. That's the point. The whole concept of
> generational maintenance of waste piles assumes that "civilisation" will
> have compatible values to ours, and so won't mind the burdens we impose
> on them. As well as making the huge, unjustifiable assumption that
> civilisation will continue, unbroken and prosperous, into the distant
> future.

I think you are overestimating the dangers of all our wastes by an
enormous amount, and underestimating the inertia of civilization since
the start of the industrial revolution. Even if civilization magically
collapsed, the dangers of nuclear waste would be tiny, except to the
occasional poor sod that stumbles upon it and trys to see what it
tastes like.

Relevant Pages