BewaConsensus Science

Greetings to you, as well, Thor,

Allow me to comment briefly on a few of your points:

>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:11:31 -0800 (PST)
>
>May I reassure you that on your point e) that the
>human race is no closer to extinction than in the 12th
>century though grim for some it may be. As in history
>those that can afford to insulate themselves will do
>so. Those that cannot will survive as best they can.
>It is not hard to discern the winners from the losers
>in a simple sense. Bangladesh looks doomed to
>dissapear due to sea level rise. Wierder things could
>happen to make this not what it seems.

Remember that when I made the extinction reference, I was assuming no
expansion into space. That is the key, the pressure relief valve of you
will. If you mean that odds are against extinction, you are probably right,
though the alternative seems scant better. If we should remain on Earth, the
population and resource competition will escalate, and will generate
conflict. Indeed, that is what all wars have been fought over, though some
are deluded into thinking some are about ideals other than this. One thing
we can be sure of: The costs will be far hire in terms of humanity than we
have ever seen. Finally, as 9/11 demonstrated, and a little reflection on
current terror and war techniques, there will be no insulation regardless of
status or wealth. The insulation will only be in small degrees.

If we find a way around violence, it will necessarily be through draconian
use of controls on the populations, both social and probably eugenic. As I
mentioned in a previous post, the world will not go out with a bang, but
(paraphrase mine) a long drawn out whimper eneded with a death rattle. I
shudder to think of it.

>
>It is my hope that this debate focuses more interest
>in the opportunities of SPS as a solution to all sort
>of earthly issues. As a group the community of space
>enthusiasts seems to me deeply fragmented. This is
>good for brainstorming though a liability for
>encouraging respectability. Tangoman is right in my
>opinion about the dangers of microwaving power to
>earth and how consensus science would work against
>that. It would not serve us to be in agreement only
>to arouse a political and scientific force we could
>not win against.

I don't think that science consesus by itself is the problem. It is when
Pseudoscience and politiks and 'holier than though' stuff gets mixed into
the final consensus presented to the public that we have a problem. When
answers are not clear, consensus must be the path for science. The Standard
Model is a good example. Environmental debate is no where near as robust as
that example yet, and so lots of room for the politikal shimmy - and the
attendant emotions. Unfortunately, this mixing of publik opinion with
science seems to lead to much flim flam, and friction for progress and
action. I have to throw my hat in TangoMan's ring when I contemplate the
publik reaction to Huge Microwaves From Space. I anticipate all kinds of
emotional appeals to the publk by campaigning politicians and borderline
hysterical media. Maybe not, though... I hope for the best where that is
concerned.

Hope, however, is a useless thing in practicality. Remember that saying:
Luck is where preparedness meets opportunity. I especially like another one
by Franklin, I think: Wealth passes us by everyday but we miss because it is
dressed in overalls and looks like work (or something like that :-) ). My
point is that if we hope to avoid that bleak outlook I sketched above, or
the SPS stalling pseudoscience, that wait for us down the pipe, we need to
get to work educating the public, voting, investing, and encouraging the
right things. In fact, the comment that all of us with outward bound dreams
are to diverse to be a block with the power to affect change, needs to be
addressed as well. But sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees...

And in case someone thinks of me as apocalyptic in view: Only in timescale.
I view apocalypse as a pop, but I foresee long drawn out fade as our fate
without space. The end is the same.

Val