COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	optimi[f86,jmc]		The scientific basis for technological optimism
C00010 ENDMK
C⊗;
optimi[f86,jmc]		The scientific basis for technological optimism

Notes:

Assertion: Scientific knowledge presently available makes possible
a technology that will support several times the world's present
population at a standard of living equivalent to that of the American
upper middle class --- up to the level at which substantial reliance
on servants begins.

The interest in the proposition stems from its policy consequences.
Those who assert the reverse draw the conclusion that the prosperous
must be somehow made to reduce drastically their standard of living or else the
world must be made to reduce its population by a substantial factor.
While there's less emphasis on the claim that the world can't sustain
a high standard of living, some people still seem to take it for granted, so
I suppose I'm not whipping a dead horse.

Delimit the proposition being asserted.
	We don't say everyone will be happy.
	We don't say that governments and people will necessarily do
the right thing.  However, they have to a sufficient degree.

The argument is scientific and technological.  It doesn't rely on
propositions from economics or political economy that if only the right
incentive structure exists, people are guaranteed to develop a sufficient
technology.  I agree that a correct incentive system is important, but a
scientific basis for the technology has to exist.  If the laws of physics
and the geography of our planet were different we might very well be
doomed in a short time.  Cartoon about the economists crawling across the
desert.  I don't assume advances in social science and not much about
present social science.

The argument could not have been made 100 years ago without expressions
of faith in future scientific discoveries.  Jevons's arguments about
England running out of coal were much more plausible than the arguments
of the present doomsayers.

We base ourselves on the following assertions:

1. There's enough energy at a reasonable labor cost.  Nuclear fission
is fine, but even solar will probably work.

2. There is enough minerals.  The present energy cost of extraction is
low enough so that even when it is increased in the ratio required
to meet the thermodynamic requirements of extraction from ``country
rock'', minerals still won't cost a large fraction of the
income of the world.

3. There is enough food for the present population, and there can
be enough for future populations several times as large.  Going
much beyond 5 times present population may require very large
changes in food technology that are scientifically plausible
but for which there is no technological experience.

4. The world isn't being polluted enough to change the picture,
and technology is being increasingly used to reduce the level
of pollution while increasing every kind of production.

5. Technological catastrophes are unlikely on a scale large enough
to change the picture.

Remarks:

Change has slowed.

All can and have prospered --- not merely those who win the spectacular
competitions for temporary monopolies.

Prosperity seems to depend mostly on millions of small technological
decisions.

Some social structures are more efficient than others.  However, prosperity
does not require that every country and region and subgroup instantly
adopt the most efficient technology for each aspect of society.

The world will probably survive even if it doesn't take my advice.

Within the next ten thousand years we will probably have to develop
a technology to prevent ice ages.

How long can we last?  Demonstrably millions of years.  Probably for
billions based on known science.  My bet would be more than 10↑30
years, but as far as I can see, the laws of physics as now understood
don't permit more than 10↑100 years.

The refutation of ``limits to growth'' is that they ignored saturation
effects.  Their models amounted to assuming that the production of
shoes would increase on past the point where each person got a pair
a day to the point where each person was buried in a truckload of
shoes per day.

Can human society stand prosperity?  The record of the past hasn't
been good, but there has been some improvement recently.


What does technology permit beyond survival and prosperity?

Present science won't support a large increase in longevity.  However,
the prospects are good for science that will.

Improvement of the species is possible but slow and too contentious
for now.  It will become more feasible when prosperity is more
widespread.  More knowledge of human genetics is also important but
not absolutely necessary.

Human expansion through the universe will be interesting.