People aren't supporting Moon Plan

>Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:14:20 -0500
>
> > Liken it to a man planning for his future. If he continues to spend on
>all
> > the little things, like beer and nintendo and a nice car that he
>replaces
> > every two years, he will find, in the end, that the enrichment he
>fancied
> > himself achieving only led to opportunities lost.
>
>Just to play devil's advocate on this...

Like I expected another approach... :-)

>
>Actually, he got the beer, nintendo, and showoff transport (which equals
>sex or security or fun if you believe the advertisers) for most of his
>active life. Whereas had he deferred gratification, chances are someone
>smarter, richer, meaner, or luckier than him will have gotten his nest
>egg in the end and he'll end up having deferred gratification for
>nothing. Also, he may well die young and then what will have deferrign
>got him. For example, this is sort of how I feel about the regressive
>FICA tax pyramid scheme I have been forced to pay, which otherwise
>(doubled for employer contributions) would leave me able to donate more
>money to what I think are good causes right now which might really lead
>to a good future for everyone.

Well, here you step into my line of work, and, believe me, I have heard all
that. The facts are however, that people have said the same thing for as far
back as you might care to look, and the results keep them exactly where they
are. You see people think themselves into situations, and then, because they
refuse to change their thinking and try a different approach, they stay
right there. It is easier to make a living today than it ever has been. That
being said, my father was able to drag himself up out of far worse
conditions than I hear most people whine and lament about today, educate
himself, and, through years of hard work and self-sacrifice, build a
business that has allowed him to make many choices that would have been
forever unavailable to him had he not endeavored to change himself. In fact,
most people in his category got there in exactly the same way, with much
greater reason to fear the future than we do today.

Oh, and about taxes, why not move to Europe with all of their efforts
towards power decentralization... I'm sure you will find the taxes enable
you to do far less than they do here :-)

The simple fact is, the greater the rewards, the greater the risk. Most
people make the mistake of thinking that by taking the greater risks and
then meeting failure, that things are over. You will find that just about
every successful person or endeavor was preceded by a multitude of failures,
but that did not stop them. They kept going until they succeeded. As I noted
in a previous e-mail, it would be very nice if the movers behind the space
program felt the same way.

And by the way, I am preparing for my finacial future, and it perturbs me no
end that my eventual success will peave all of the grasshoppers who failed
to plan ahead. I can hear them now clamoring for my hard earned wealth. I
hope that by than I can tell them to live with their own consequences.

>
>The line of reasoning behind deferred gratification only works when one
>can have a certain level of faith in the economic system and one's
>ability to navigate it succesfully (and that such effort is required).
>For a counterpoint on who the whole economic system is messed up, see
>for one example:
> http://www.urbansurvival.com/
>One big problem is, that when the world is changing at an ever faster
>rate, it is hard to make any reasonable future projections.
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

It is not difficult to navigate at all. Fear of the unknown, I think, keeps
people from learning. Or perhaps they don't feel it necessary to learn...
Not sure why... If you can't figure it out, get a financial advisor. And by
the way, I predict that the economic size of the world will continue to
increase. Since you advocate frivolous expenditures of money, why not bet me
a months pay that it doesn't happen? I look forward to the increase in my
savings :-)

>
>Having said that, I do think the notion of "investment" made by
>communities is often a good idea (although of course this is what has
>led to non-western nations being deeply in debt with half finished dams
>they don't have a use for anyway and dictators-in-exile with fat Swiss
>bank accounts).

Try internal corruption for the roots of those problems. This is well
documented.

>
>Still, lest the above be taken as license for debauchery or failure to
>plan at all, I think simplicity and thrift for its own sake, and for the
>immediate freedom and flexibility it provides, makes a lot of sense, as
>do the purchase or construction of quality artifacts appropriate for
>meeting humane needs. When you spend less on beer, nintendo, and
>transport, that allows you to spend more on potentially more interesting
>hobbies, as well as work less so you have time to enjoy them. The issue
>is taking a long hard look at beer, nintendo, and transport etc. and
>deciding what your values are. This can result in deferred
>gratification, but it can also result in making different immediate
>purchasing or time choices (e.g. drinking purified water, socializing,
>and living in a city without a car).

Agreed. When one projects down the road, and plans accordingly, they can
have their nintendos and beer, donate to charities or other projects (like
some sort of private space initiative - are we hearing the same music here,
my friend? :-) ) and still have enough left over to contiue and generate
further contributions and so on. This is how endowments work, like the Nobel
prizes.

In addition, you and others are free to choose immediate reward, but in
doing so, realize that you will always end up having far less ability to
play a part in the bigger and really important choices. So don't let me hear
those people griping about it whhen it happens. And why mention less work?
I'm sure that everyone will want their say, but why should people who choose
to contribute less to the effort have the same impact with their opinions?

>
>Hunter and gatherer societies had a different way of looking at this --
>if the world is abundant (relative to a population), and you are
>knowledgeable to recognize abundance (say, knowing what insects or roots
>are good eating), then you can have faith that the world will always
>provide without needing to store things up (well, maybe some for winter
>in extreme climates). Part of the problem is simply a need to use more
>efficient technology to again create vast abundance for billions of
>people (e.g. dirt-cheap local PV). See for example another site on
>revising our story about ourselves to make the world a better place:
>http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/stories/2003/02/15/howToSaveTheWorld.html

I am not sure that these types of references to hunter gather societies have
much relevance here, and they are certainly not useful in so far as I have
seen you post them. I.e., The implied hunter gather utopias most certainly
did not exist, with famine, disease, and other environmental concerns
killing off huge numbers of people with absolutely no regard to their
political philosiphies (the horror! the unfairness!). Thus, trying to use
them as examples of harmony with nature doesn't work out well. My
father-in-law lives on a Native American reservation, and he has very
differnet histories to tell about hunter gatherer societies. Lets just say
that they were no strangers to war, rape, and pillage long before outside
influences showed up to contribute.

>
> > Surely as he takes stock of
> > his situation, he will see how much further ahead he would find himself
>if
> > only he had kept focus and sacrificed the small pleasures. I think he
>would
> > find his wealth on a grand scale capable of far more if only he had
> > invested...
>
>He might get further ahead if he turns off broadcast TV, certainly,
>since much advertising rots the brain. :-) But, as they say, the best
>things in life are free (or at least, cheap).

I agree 100%!!! I don't let my kids watch that infernal thing! However, I
include piped in channels as well in my ban. In a past life I worked for
NBC, and I'm sure I could curl your toes with stories about the news room
:-)

> http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/tvturnoff/
>Somewhere in here is a balance (see for example the movie "Scrooged").
>I think the fundamental issue in modern society is that most jobs are so
>stressful and/or dull and/or demeaning in some way that people feel they
>need various expensive techno pleasures (e.g. latest nintendo) as
>virtual drugs or alternate reality escapes to make it through to another
>day. Thus the wage slave slides deeper and deeper into debt...

Frankly, that is a load of crap Paul. As I descibed above, people are wage
slaves because they choose not to change. Besides that, I have been in
third world countries and done jobs thre happily, along with indigenous
people who were also quite happy, that I am quite sure would reduce these so
whining wage slaves to puddles of woe-is-meism. Tell anyone you know that
fits the description you gave to quit whining, save their money, and change
their job/approach. People that don't will get absolutely no sympathy from
me. But I'd be happy to help if they make the effort.

>
> > Here we find ourselves with an opportunity... Should we squander it, or
>get
> > behind it knowing that all our dreams have far more chance of
>realization if
> > we delay the small pleasures and lend our efforts to the greater cause.
>
>I think what we may have to do is find a way to make space technology
>development intrinsically fun -- more fun than watching Star Trek and B5
>and even kibittizing on this list. OSCOMAK (or the ideas behind it
>presented by me at the last SSI conference) was a step in that way,
>although it has a long ways to go.
> http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/index.htm

I most suredly agree, though I would use the word 'cool' rather than fun,
because that seems to have more appeal with the masses :-) First you have to
get those 'wage slaves' off their freakin couch where they are watching the
motivation waster.

>I've spent a long time thinking about how to get self-replicating space
>habitats for on the cheap as far as up-front cash (not having much in
>proportion to the total size of the effort ultimately required). Still
>haven't succeeded in makign it fun enough though.

I may be mistaken, but there aren't any technologies even projected over the
next century to make that happen. I would suggest we choose an approach that
is feasible within the near (30yr) future, and back that. One, for selfsih
reasons: I wanna see it! Two, why wait? Three, we might never get of the
ground for real if we don't get off our arses soon...

Val