How important is your life to the Universe?

Tags

Creating the Universal consciousness., humanity's survival, humanity's survival plan

This sounds like a silly question because the Universe doesn’t think, because it can’t think, it doesn’t have a mind. Or does it? Don’t you have a mind, and aren’t you part of the Universe? And don’t you think I have a mind when I create and think these thoughts, write them down here on the net, and thus set them before you to think about? Aren’t you and I part of the Universe and don’t we think? I think I think and I think you think and therefore I think the Universe thinks because our thoughts are part of it.

However, doesn’t Google think when I ask it a question? Some might say it doesn’t think, it only computes, but you might say the same thing about me. How can you know? I am only a little more than an organic computer and not a very good one at that. You can ask Google verbally lots of questions in lots of languages and “she” will respond much more quickly than I. I just googled, “How many languages does Google speak?” and it within a second answered, over fifty at present and adding about ten per year. At present, the understanding isn’t what a native speaker would expect, but it is improving all the time. In some things, Google already possesses more human qualities than I do. It is improving and I being geriatric am devolving. I obviously don’t know you or your age et cetera, but by the time we are aged one hundred, she will know all the seven hundred languages and will carry on a conversation with native speakers of any of those languages. For me, that’s seventeen years, and maybe pushing the technology a bit, but if you are age twenty in another eighty years you will consider that a feeble example of cutting-edge technology.

But what value are you and I to the Universe? My current take on that question is that we are a transition species, moving from a human, living, carbon-based bodily form with a great jump into a planetary-size silicon-based new life form. Our present technology has the capacity to build everything needed to get a silicon-based life up and running. Once it is sustaining itself without our help, it will be able to evolve. It can develop into a planetary-size organized thinking being, and it can propagate to other planets and become a galactic size being. And, with a bit of time, contact the other 1 x 10^22 possible planets out there and form a universe-wide consciousness.

You and I can help to create a Universe that thinks. It would probably value and appreciate our doing that.

Advertisements

Probaway’s views of existential risks to humanity

Tags

humanity's survival

The EarthArk Project logo symbolizes seeds shipped to Antarctica

Over the last 2,000 blog posts I have attempted to discuss ways to improve the human condition. Many of these were personal, but most were intended to be of a humanity-wide interest. These posts try to predict what will happen based on obvious facts, even if these predictions are unpleasant, but they also attempt to find and suggest workable solutions to the problems. The prospects for humanity are grim if we don’t solve our problems soon, and the most unpleasant one to most people is placing a clearly defined limit on human population. The reason that is critical is because no matter how successful technology is, it can never cope with an infinite growth of population. That said, below is a list of search terms for this site which will help you see the problems and potential answers.

Risks –

Disaster –

Doomsday –

Robots –

H-bomb –

Population –

The EarthArk –

When these thoughts depress me too much I watch the movie:

Dr. Strangelove

-Oh, why worry? Just listen to a little soothing music.

The De Castro Sisters –Mañana is soon enough for me.  

Dr. Strangelove – Vera Lynn – We’ll Meet Again

Why do women have children ?

Tags

Earth's population problem, humanity's survival, Why do women have children?

Earlier today I was in a conversation with a dozen people about the moral urgency of climate change. It was based on an interview of Kathleen Dean Moore by Mary Democker called Your House Is On Fire, which we had read previously, and a brief introduction was presented before we started our discussion.

Our conversation followed the article and we added our opinions about the various problems, but my personal problem with the whole ecology movement is that they all but ignore the population aspect. My personal feeling is that unless we and the future people somehow create effective population control all the patches proposed to various things like creating better crops or limiting oil drilling are futile in the long run. The worst of it is the long run isn’t very long. When mineral petroleum becomes scarce it is difficult to imagine the price of automobile gasoline not rising to the level where personal autos can’t be powered that way.

With the production of food people seem to think that because the Green Revolution worked once and doubled the world’s food supply, all we need to do is to have another Green Revolution. It is easy to say, but how can it be done? Perhaps it is physically impossible. Then what? The obvious answer is that human population must be brought under control somehow, and that means the population must never exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. There are several ways that might come to pass. 1. We voluntarily reduce our population. 2. We endure a worldwide famine. 3. We have a really serious world war. 4. We have a really serious disease, either human or crop.

If we continue as we presently are, it seems obvious that one of these eventualities must hit humanity within the lifetimes of people now living. Perhaps present ninety-year-old people will see it happen, perhaps not. But, ten year old people are almost certain to see a major world population decline if they live to be ninety. That’s just eighty years, which seems like a long time, but the current population is doubling every forty years, and that would be two doublings from our current population of seven billion. One doubling is fourteen billion and a second doubling is twenty-eight billion people. When I was born there were just over two billion people. It’s hard to look at a little kid and think when he is my age there will be fourteen times as many people as when I was his age. It has brought tears to my eyes several times when I have seen happy tots walking along, through an arch of outstretched arms, while we adults sing, “As you go may joy surround you, as you go, go in peace. Know our love is with you always, as you go, as you go.” (Usually repeated.) Go to what?

If the world population was returned to the two billion it was when I was young, or better yet the population of 1825 of one billion people, the Earth could support us in a good way. If we continue breeding as we are it seems obvious there will be a collapse, of some sort, within the lives of those kids I know. When seen in that way it seems a moral obligation to find a solution to our Earth’s problems and our over-demanding population.

It comes to the question of how do we set a population number that is fair and reasonable, and then how can it be enforced in a fair way? At present it is well known that well-educated women have fewer children, but also well known is the fact that half of American women’s children are born out of wedlock. On average these women already have ten or more years of education. So, how much do they need? How can women be educated to the point where they control their child bearing when the population has reached the maximum sustenance level and there is no money to educate them? How can these women be convinced it is better for them to inhibit their child-bearing potential? Or is it going to be, as one woman suggested in a joking tone, “Castrate all the males!” That seems drastic, and yet the near extinction of humanity seems drastic too, and likely if we don’t do something, and something we all presently think of as drastic. We must answer the problem, or natural processes will answer it for us in an exceedingly unpleasant way.

Why do women have children?

 

---

1. philosopheriturist said:

   2013 April 22 at 7:07 am

   I appreciate all of this except the end sexist and elitist comments. We need to educate men on equal par with women, not just castrate them. To ask “Why do women have children?” seems short-sighted, limiting, and smacks of age-old male dominance issues which we are trying to overcome. A lot of women feel that if only men would get their priorities lined up, we wouldn’t have such a population problem.

   A lot of women are perfectly fine giving men the wheel and sitting back as their planet explodes.

   Education is also an elitist concept, to some. Waving one’s degree as if it symbolizes moral superiority is a misinterpretation of what schools are meant to prepare us for. If school was interested in a moral education, there would be dramatic shifts in how we measure our students.

   To accuse people of “ignorance” on any issue, is not their fault, but the aloof accuser’s. It is societies fault. The person accusing is just as much responsible as the educator or the statesperson. They can volunteer for S.M.A.R.T. for instance for an hour a week of their precious lifetime. If everyone did that, a lot more people would be able to think better, and act better.

   I just wish we would stop pointing fingers, get to work and make a difference instead of another complaint.

   I really like the first 2/3s of the essay though. Man, I’m totally with you there in my fears for our current and future kiddos.

   Reply

   [Edit Comment]

2. probaway said:

   2013 April 22 at 1:59 pm

   The blog post attempts to find answers to the difficult problem of limits to Earth’s ability to support humans. It seems that any solution is going to be terrible by our present standards. Searching through the possible alternatives is unpleasant at best, and horrifying at not even the worst. Perhaps the worst would be a slow but steady externally imposed extinction at about the rate of current expansion. Imagine half of all people being dead in forty years, from uncontrolled causes and again half of the surviving population being dead in another forty years.
   On a daily basis life might seem reasonably normal, as it does now with a similar rate of growth of population, but over an eighty year lifetime the drop to a quarter population one remembered as a child would feel painfully tragic. The reason this would feel worse because a sudden die off in a very short time from a war or epidemic would just be accepted and life would return to normal, but a slow withering would be a constant and unremitting pain.

Human morality isn’t up to the problems humans create

Tags

humanity's survival, Laws for humanity's survival

Modern humans are the most moral creatures ever to inhabit this planet, but we must up our standards quickly or suffer the consequences. The only species that challenges our moral superiority is dogs, and they are amazingly loyal to their in-group, far beyond what we humans are capable of. My dogs demonstrated to me their willingness to support my needs several times at the risk of their own well-being. Of course under some circumstances people rise to social challenges, but the instant support of dogs is amazing. Perhaps there are other social animals, wild ones, of which I have no experience that have this selfless support of their companions, but dogs have been bred for thousands of years for obedience and loyalty, and they were derived from wolves which are observed to be loyal to their pack.

This approach supposes animal morality is a genetically inherited trait, and clearly some of it is, but human morality goes a large step further and generates abstract higher levels of morality. That we should love God with all our heart, mind and soul is so abstract a concept that no animal but a human one could attempt it. But being genetically human isn’t enough; to obey this commandment, we must be able to learn to speak and to absorb into our habits the social qualities of our local group. Even ancient hunters probably would have trouble with an abstract god, and would be limited to projecting human-like qualities, including those gods’ motivations, into the natural objects of their environment. It requires more mental operations to have those objects generate their own moral expectations of us humans. And even more fancy mental jumps are required to remove the objects possessing these expectations from perception and project these abstract traits into an absolute void. To do that requires sophisticated language with clear and easy usage of abstract time and space concepts along with ideas of motivation and result. If these mental operations don’t function with near genetic fluidity and precision, then morality becomes limited to currently visible relationships.

Modern technology is wonderful and grants us highly desirable options for living long and healthy lives free of the constant threat of depredation from wild predators and easy access to abundant food. Of course dangerous things and deprivations are still resident in the world, but our technology and society keeps them at a distance from most of us. Humanity as a whole had gained near total dominance of the environment, but not control. Control requires humans forming an opinion of what needs to be done and then doing it as a group even though some, or even many members of the totality don’t want to cooperate. That requires organization and creating laws with sufficient group cohesion to enforce unwanted behavior upon the recalcitrant. This of course is unpleasant and unpopular but if we as seven billion people are to live with these modern comforts we must as a group live within the limitations that nature provides. If this level of morality can not be accepted by humanity as a whole and enforced on everyone, then nature will see to it that our numbers are reduced to what can be supported by primitive means. That means perhaps dropping back to species population numbers typical of large mammals, and that means more like seven thousand humans on Earth rather than seven billion.

At the very small population size, and small group size, of the post-collapse world, it is those people most unwilling to obey the group social standards who will be ostracized and die. The very people who presently are most unwilling to obey the needs of their social group and thus of humanity will be those who will be most pruned away.

Our current supplies of energy from gas, oil, coal, nuclear power have limited one-time supply in the range of tens of years to at most a few hundreds of years. I am thinking of these problems in a longer term, but to conceptualize it think in terms of things you are familiar with, like buildings. One decade past equals World Trade Center collapse versus one decade future equals price of gasoline doubling. Four decades past equals World Trade Center construction and price of gasoline ten times. Obviously this is speculation, but consider that China is now building more cars than the US and Japan combined and those cars must be fueled with something. Go back to 1913, a hundred years, ten decades, and tall buildings are just getting well started and cars are unique items and not yet mass produced and nearly all the energy to produce energy, gas, oil and most coal are still in the ground. Now go that same time into the future, and newborn babies are expected to live, on average, nearly that long, and what do you expect? Well it is obvious, that most of the stored energy will have been consumed and formed pollution in the air, water and elsewhere which makes everything less efficient and thus cost even more. Something has to give, and the best for us all is to consume far less one-time use natural resources. But to succeed at that requires a feeling of worldwide morality and a willingness to live with what that means. Unfortunately, what that probably means is to willingly drop the population of humanity back to a billion or less, and that simply isn’t possible with today’s morality. We therefore must achieve a new level of morality or die back to what is in balance with the other animals.

Future humanity lives well with a billion people, or the alternative, a few thousand desperate ones.

Guiding a Doomsday asteroid away from an Earth collision.

Tags

Asteroid collision, humanity's survival

[For more, type “asteroid” in the search box.] [Deep Space Industries]

There is some worry about an asteroid striking Earth and wiping out humanity. Asteroids have struck before, such as the one that caused extermination of the dinosaurs. The rate of these events is about once every hundred million years, so this isn’t a personal problem. However, it is a humanity-level problem and thus it should be approached with a tiny bit of support from everyone. A penny per person per year would be $70 million, which is a reasonable amount to spend searching for potential Earth-crossing asteroids. Once one was discovered, which is very unlikely, a greater input would be needed; but major monetary input can be put off until something serious is discovered.

When a Doomsday asteroid is discovered there comes the problem of how to prevent the collision, and those considerations can be developed while we have time to think about our options. Blasting it with a hydrogen bomb would probably work, even if the collision were only a few days away, but there would still be big pieces if it got that close. If it were years away from collision the debris from an H-bomb hitting it would be scattered enough to give only occasional falling pieces. Most of these would be small and no problem; the few larger pieces would be tracked after the H-bomb explosion, and any pieces still on a collision course with Earth could be hit again.

The H-bomb is the ugly brute-force method and is a last-resort solution. There are other ways using rocket propulsion to gently push the asteroid into a different course. These are incredibly expensive because it requires getting heavy fuel to very distant places and burning it precisely in expensive equipment. The problem of weight comes with the fueling and refueling of the rocket engines. Even ion thrusters would require a lot of mass to make them big enough to give the needed push. This would probably work, but to be effective it would require precision at the limits of possibility to push soon enough, and in the right way.

There is a way to use the asteroid itself and the energy from the sun to create thrust. Place a very large membrane mirror near the asteroid and focus the reflected rays of the sun onto a point on the asteroid.  This would create a reactive jet of superheated material that would gently push the asteroid away from the heated point. That reactive point would be determined by the path calculated to guide the asteroid away from a collision course. Once again this would require years of precision guidance and monitored pressure to guide the asteroid away from collision. The bigger the asteroid, the earlier the push must begin, and the course projected accurately.

An ion thruster could be powered by an atomic battery, and it wouldn’t require as much weight to be put on the surface, but it would still be a lot, and be technically sophisticated. Perhaps a solar panel could be used to power the ion thruster. All the same it would take years of steady push to make enough difference with a large asteroid. On the other hand it will be smaller ones, with the power of the Arizona Meteor Crater, that are far more numerous, and these might be guided with a more easily created system. These have an Earth striking rate of one every ten thousand years. I have better plans for such an object. It would become a useful object if it could be steered in such a way as to return to a near-Earth position and possibly even put into orbit around the Earth. If that could be done with a rubble asteroid it would be a huge boon for humanity, because it could be  mined for creating materials to be used in manufacturing huge space stations. Another application would be to use its inertia to lift objects off the Earth by dropping a line and at just the right instant hooking a payload to the line.

A Doomsday asteroid might become a huge asset to humanity.

What is my responsibility to remote humanity?

Tags

humanity's survival, What are my ultimate responsibilities?

Is my responsibility only to myself, or do I also have some responsibility for all humanity? The goal of all life is to survive and reproduce itself, so there shouldn’t be the slightest doubt that I should maintain my bodily health and social self-interest at a level that protects my personal vital interests. Then of course the members of my family are an extension of myself at this same basic level, but even there every individual must be responsible to try to maintain themselves at a reasonable level. A reasonable level is to own your place of residence and have reliable access to the necessities of life; basically it is to attempt to not be in debt to anyone for one’s basic existence. Beyond that one has ethical responsibilities to one’s social group and legal responsibilities to one’s country.

These are routine expectations of all modern humans, but my thoughts have been challenged by, “What are my responsibilities to my human DNA?” Do I owe something to it and all humanity? My species’ ancestors gave me my human existence, and shouldn’t I at least consider this as a gift that should be passed on to my distant descendents? This is a kind of morality that goes far beyond my responsibility to my own well-being, or that of my family, or friends and nation, or perhaps all currently living people. This is a morality that goes to the end of human time, it is a sublime-morality.

In the vastness of the future there will come a time when humans as we know them no longer exist. We might be gone in a hundred thousand years; that’s about how long humans as we know them have existed. Or perhaps we might survive for a million years, and our descendents would be as different from us as the famous pre-human ancestor Lucy. Or to stretch the idea to a billion years, advancement might have our lineal descendents being as different from us as we are from single cell organisms of a billion years ago.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine that each century of the future had a stable population and each century had a total of ten billion people who lived. That simple view would give two hundred billion people having lived in two thousand years. That seeming vast number would live in the historical time equal to that from the Roman Empire or from 1 AD to now.

All of the people of our past left a planet which is livable for us. It would seem reasonable that we people living now are responsible for at least leaving the planet available for those people who are to live in the future, but our responsibilities might easily be expanded to go far beyond merely leaving a layer of dirt and water. That is going to be here no matter what we do, but to leave something livable and meaningful is within our power. At the moment we are simply consuming what is available, but we are now vastly more aware of our human impact, and we now have some ability to behave in ways which are sustainable. It will probably turn out that we will simply consume at a maximum rate, whatever is available, and when that is gone simply consume at a maximum rate whatever is still available. Choosing that strategy will obviously degrade everything we now hold valuable to total ruin. Perhaps we can find a better way. I can project my mind into the distant future when humanity is transitioning into something we would no longer call human, but something better, or at least different. At that time I would like us all, individuals and species, to be able to look back at us individuals and species and say,

“We fulfilled our potential for life — we lived and lived.”

Cultivating the habit of kindness is essential for all humanity.

Tags

human evolution, Human kindness is learned., humanity's survival

I have gone through most of my life without thinking specifically about kindness, and coming to that concept so late has been a little strange. Way back in 1994 I published a series of easily photo-copyable one-page personal discoveries on how to improve one’s life. Proba 95 – Pass It On, actually published in November of 94 so it would have a current date for a year, was originally thought of as coming up with a significant idea once a month and writing it up on a single standard typing sheet of paper. The current Probaway is basically the same idea but coming up with a worthwhile new idea every day and publishing it to the internet.

In part this blog may have come from several ideas which had been percolating within me for years. One from Burris Cunningham, loosely quoted, “What awesome thing have you discovered today?” This man shepherded many a man to his Nobel Prize, for example, Glen Seaborg, Yuan Lee, and when Burris asked that simple question, he really meant it.  Another moment for me came from Bob Westerburg, “Get wisdom my son, and with all thy getting get understanding.” He was one of the strange Berkeley gurus whom I was close to for years. Another challenge, in this case originating from me to my Mediterranean coffee shop (2400 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, CA) friends, “You can change the world with an idea written down on this sheet of paper. Do it! Do it now!” I don’t know if Jerry Rubin heard me say that, and took it to heart, but I did have several conversations with him about the time I was annoying my closer friends with that idea. It was years before Jerry made that command “Just do it!”popular and decades before Nike did.

All of those ideas came about in the 1960s, each of which I pursued for years. Those were not about kindness per se, except the “Pass It On” idea, written up years later, was similar to a kindness in that it didn’t require, or expect, a repayment of any kind for the good deed. There was a hope that people would photocopy the document they received and Pass It On, but so far as I know that never happened, and it certainly didn’t go viral as hoped. There were some very good ideas in Proba-95, so it wasn’t lack of content that didn’t work but the method of promoting those ideas which was ill-conceived and therefore a failure. I probably would have been much more successful simply sending them out as letters to the editor to various newspapers. I have had some more recent projects which I wasted a huge amount of personal effort on that were good ideas, but which I promulgated improperly on the internet, such as The World Heritage Sites With Links. The Life Haven Project is another one of my desperately needed ideas to be implemented by humanity, but which is still stillborn. I hope I have learned enough from these failures to modify The Kindness Project in such a way that it becomes a success. Perhaps it is even more important than The Earth Ark Project. The Earth Ark is simply a way to help future people recover from the disasters current humanity is wreaking on our Earth, even before WW III, but The Kindness Project is a way to train humans to be kinder to one another and to themselves, and until that happens we will always be at profound risk of extinction.

When people have the habit of being kind to themselves as a core value, humanity will have a happier, healthier, wiser and wealthier place to live, and all of the members of humanity could approach contentment.

Continue working as if humanity can be saved.

Tags

Brilliant fools, Constitution for Humanity, EarthArk, Eternal society, Human stupidity, humanity's survival, WOEs Weapons of Extermination

The EarthArk Project and The Life Haven Project are desperate grasps at prolonging humanity, civilization and an abundant diversity of life here on Earth. These are easily doable things from the technical perspective but difficult for me as an individual to accomplish because of their organizational complexity. What I have been able to do so far is to lay out a general plan and identify the most ideal locations where these Arks could be placed.

These are similar ambitions to the Biblical Noah’s Ark, where a sampling of all the creatures of the Earth were tucked into a large boat and saved until the disaster had abated. Noah’s efforts have been mocked even to this day, and yet when we look at the present world situation it seems likely that a disaster will happen in the near future. That being the case it is relatively easy for humanity, but not an individuals, to make preparations and place samples of everything, especially wild seeds, into a deep freeze in Antarctica, where they could be recovered later. These samples would provide a basis upon which to reconstruct a vibrant world after this modern disaster had abated.

But, whether human beings will ever calmly survey their situation until after it is almost past retrieve and whether human faculty is reliable enough in its operations to insure some measure of agreement on the part of persons who do thus survey the situation—of these there is little in human experience up to now that encourages one to be very sanguine. There is nothing for us to do but to keep reminding ourselves of Kant’s dictum and to go on working “as if”—”as if” there were some hope that serious men would think, would come to some kind of agreement and would be able to persuade the rest of the world to reason. You and I are not young, but we have some of the buoyancy of youth and I daresay will continue our “as if” battle until the end, but it would be a comfort to believe, if only one could, that a more rational civilization and a more rational utilization of human intelligence would characterize the world in which our children are to grow old. — I Remember – The Autobiography of Abraham Flexner p. 157 (cofounder of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton)  from a letter to Sir Frank Heath ~9th Dec 1924

What a wonderful statement of hope for the future progress of humanity—and yet, this man helped create and supported the Institute of Advanced Studies, where the men who created the most horrible weapons humanity has yet devised finished their public careers. It gives me profound doubt about the healthy future for humanity when one of our finest humans then writes:

Nations have recently been led to borrow billions for war; no nation has ever borrowed largely for education… no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both. Abraham Flexner

Having said that, Flexner chose to support the creators of weapons of war rather than education.

We must have the EarthArk because humanities very best people have provided us with Weapons Of Extermination (WOEs), which bring all of us, and most other species also, to the brink of absolute disaster and extinction. These wonderful people say we must behave “as if” humanity will find a way to survive. Unfortunately, these are the very ones who created the devices which make our survival nearly impossible. If we follow in their footsteps and their pattern of thinking humanity is certainly doomed to extinction.

Tighter feedback loops must be formed in operational reality between words, actions and final results. Paying attention to the feedback from Nature of our actions is the only hope for human survival and when the natural development of human words and actions brings all humanity to absolute disaster we should pay very close attention. The present deployment of everything necessary to exterminate society already exists and random chance-events will at some moment trigger their use. A possible second chance, a remote one, might be had, which will pull us back from the brink of extinction but not from the Doomsday disaster. Humanity now needs to create —

The EarthArk and The Eternal Society Constitution.

The 3rd most important issue facing humanity is WOEs.

Tags

human survival, humanity's survival, Weapons of extermination, WOEs, WOEs Weapons of Extermination

Weapons Of Extermination (WOEs) are those designed to kill species. When human intelligence and research are aimed at destroying humans, not as individuals, but as large genetic groups, there exists the possibility of being too successful and designing something which will kill all humans.

In the past, genocidal efforts have been made with rabbits in Australia and with other unwanted invasive species, such as the kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), Andean Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis).

In a balanced environment, all species are attempting a relative crowding of their own species members for food and mates, but they are also crowding other species with overlapping needs in more absolute terms for those same necessities of life. However, sometimes an alien species with an unusual advantage, developed elsewhere, can invade a locality and totally crowd out many otherwise healthy species, creating a local havoc.

Humans are the most successful of the invasive species, and they have crowded out and replaced with their own bodies and with their domesticated species many entire stable environments. Also, by their pollution they have made the entire Earth’s ecosystem different, which is disruptive to otherwise stable local environments. This has generally been good for humans and their numbers have grown prodigiously. As I am a human I find this growth to be a positive thing, but we have been so successful that we are consuming our base. In the short run of say another ten years or so this overconsumption is probably sustainable, but in the long run, which may be as short as forty years and unlikely to be so long as eighty years, collapse is inevitable. A huge population when it runs short of some necessity which cannot be economically replaced will suddenly consume all of the item, and some sort of disaster will ensue. That collapse will happen even without a major war, but it will probably precipitate a major war, which will make it even worse.

In the 19th century there was the intentional destruction in the US of some competitor species such as the passenger pigeon, the American bison, coyotes, wolves, and Grizzly bears. This was usually done on an individual basis, by shooting, trapping or poisoning, etc. This type of exterminating behavior, carried out in a widespread and sustained way, can lead to the extinction of a species, but it is very difficult. Humans have exterminated lots of species unintentionally, but the only species to have been intentionally exterminated is the smallpox virus. And now we’re attempting to eradicate polio.

The WOEs that are applicable to humans are probably limited at present to a Doomsday war where nearly all of the atomic bombs are exploded over cities. The bombs don’t kill everyone but the smoke of the burning cities creates so much smoke that crops fail for a growing season and perhaps for years. With only two months of food in storage at any time, the survivors would quickly eat it up, and there would be nothing left for anyone. However, even in this grim scenario there would probably be a few pockets of a small number of survivors who just happened to be near a large storage-depot of food.

There is the possibility of a Cobalt bomb, which is a standard Hydrogen bomb with a casing of cobalt. When the H-bomb explodes it converts the cobalt into a radioactive isotope which is long lived enough to create several years of sterilization effects. These effects would be planet-wide, but it would take quite a few bombs to sterilize the whole planet. There isn’t much reason for anyone to use them because it simply kills everything they hold dear. And yet, their use isn’t impossible; after all, some people commit suicide, so these types of weapons must be absolutely eliminated. Fortunately, very few people will ever have possession of these types of weapons. It has been remarkably difficult even for countries to develop conventional atomic bombs, and a cobalt bomb would require these atomic bombs to trigger them and much more.

What is perhaps the most worrisome are biological weapons, because a single person with the right knowledge, equipment, time, money and genocidal inclinations might be able to fabricate a deadly disease. A new disease might be undefended against by the human body and yet be quite contagious. If this disease had some ubiquitous co-host, such as rodents or flies which carried the disease but didn’t die from it, then this new disease might be sustained even when there were no humans around. And yet, when there were humans around they would contract the disease and die. That terrible combination of effects of a disease might be capable of humanicide. I hope not, but in our new world of instant transmission of new knowledge it might become a group effort and be accomplished. I am very enthusiastic about free access of knowledge, but these WOES are a case where it would be counterproductive for all humanity.

Soon Doomsday will end and the New Adventure will begin.

Tags

humanity's survival, Laws for humanities survival

There has been too much talk about Doomsday. We need a new day which is the opposite of Doomsday a New Adventure. A day commemorating a vivacious New World. A new world where there would be workable principles which could bring about a self balancing society. One which would return to a natural harmony with the Earth. This would be possible if there were few enough people on the Earth such that it could supply all needs and wants in abundance and be self restoring. It would be possible if people’s needs were met and there was an inexorable negative feedback to all overshot behavior. This would be a second coming for humanity but not of an individual messiah but of a whole new humanity — one based on a permanent dynamic sustainability.

For humanity it would be a limited libration with its dynamic energy moving around some central point or points with strangely attractive behaviors. It is difficult or perhaps impossible to define exactly how this works because it constantly changes but there is a feedback which takes the various forces and inertiae and as things change the summation of the complex behaviors move and migrate about some points that after many cycles do become identifiable. Humanities total population would be one of these where it were oscillate about some figure which balanced out all of the numerous factors of food, predators, competition, resources and many other variables. While humans were living in a low tech situation that is the way it was. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, we have acquired the ability to generate vast amounts of high quality information and the ability to use that information to control the world. All of this was still okay for a long time because the Earth is so big compared to humans but then about the year 1800 humans started getting too good for their own long-term good. They developed the scientific method of accurate information generation and effective methods for using that information to build a better and bigger society. Still it might have gone along smoothly oscillating about some strange attractor of population but at a new set point. Then came super knowledge and super weapons and now functionally super humans and we have, or nearly have, the ability to exterminate themselves. This takes our present strange attractor point and moves it to some infinity of no return. Human population is now in a condition of bouncing from infinitely large, which is unsustainable to infinitely small which is also equally unsustainable. Until this problem can be solved humanity is soon to be terminated — terminated forever. With our present technology we will oscillate from far too many humans to far too few and will soon fail. The problem becomes two-fold how to limit population to an easily provided for number and how to eliminate the high-tech knowledge and ability to exterminate humanity. At present we have both abilities for absolute overpopulation and total destruction but we also have the foresight to create a society where these excess things can be controled and eliminated. If that were successfully accomplished it would be possible to enter into a liberating humanity situation and everyone who choose to do so could live a long, enjoyable and comfortable life.

What would the ideal number of living humans be? I don’t know but if humanity were to survive for thousands of years those people of the distant future would from experience come to know a proper number if they had guidelines as to when there were too many and when there were too few. Here are possible definitions: There are too many people when the Earth’s single use resources are being mined. If humanity is to live for a very, very long time all the usage of materials must be 100% recyclable and recycled. And the opposite, there are too few people when the technology requiring human input is not able to be peopled with sufficient numbers workers to maintain society. Because there are so many variables such as hurricanes and droughts there must be a built in reserve which must be calculated into these estimates. Who are the people going to be to make these population estimates? It needs to be a fair process with everyone being able, at some point in their lives, to have some input as to the numbering process. It would seem best in this distant and stable society if people beyond reproductive years are the deciders but not people so old as to have mental failings. They should have abundant life experience but still be thoughtful. Perhaps each decade of life which could be most objective about some particular subject should have a particular type of voting input decided by that cohert to decide that item. People age 60-70 would vote on the population number to be aimed at for the next decade. People age 30-40 would vote on how much money was to be spent of health care. Each decade a decade of people would vote on their decades option and that option would change every decade as they aged. There would obviously be a lot of political bickering about this process but that ultimately smooths thing out. This is just an idea of a possibility for allocating various resources. Perhaps these votes would not be abstract numbers but rather options like 1 much more, 2 some more, 3 about the same , 4 some less, 5 a lot less. That would be an effort to give a gentle push in some desirable direction.

The other major obstacle to permanent librating humanity is the total absence of WOEs, (Weapons of Extermination). These types of weapons must not only eliminated the people who seek them must be eliminated. No one needs WOEs and those who seek them can not be trusted or tolerated so they must go. A very high-tech civilization will be possible in the distant future of humanity and that will probably include access to ultra high-speed information. That sounds wonderful until one considers tha possibility of downloading precise information on how to make WOEs. This kind of information could be downloaded in a millisecond embedded in a single frame of a high def movie. This information could then be copied out of that frame or memorized or whatever and be available to this person who would become very dangerous to all humanity. A world with instantaneous access to all information ever possessed by humans in this distant time would soon destroy everyone. Some people in seemingly beautiful life situations nowadays elect to commit suicide and some of these choose to take loved ones with them. That can not be permitted with access to WOEs type information or else all humanity dies and almost everyone wants to live and enjoy life. This is a case where majority rules makes sense.

To maximize human happiness there needs to be healthy people living on a healthy Earth.