On 5/24/08, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
>
> The problem with this kind of thinking is that no one knows enough or is
> smart enough to do the job. History teaches that neither governments nor
> scientists could be trusted. Consider that Earth's land areas are mostly
> open space, meaning that vastly larger populations could be accommodated if
> we could figure out how to do it wisely. No one predicted the technological
> advances of the past that have made life better for people, no one can
> foresee the technological advances of the future that may make life even
> better.
>
> Vastly more people today are living better lives materially speaking than at
> any time in the past. Why try to shut this trend down, since you're not
> smart enough to know how to do it? Only the commies were smart enough,
> until they realized they weren't.
>
> Only when things start getting noticeably worse for the average human than
> they were previously will we have an indication that we may be up against
> some kind of limit. Even then the deterioration could be only temporary.
>
The operative word here is "may." In some technological areas, it is
called "betting on the come."
The other operative word is "smart enough." That implies, of course,
that our kids will excell at "smartness" over our accomplishments. But
it is more likely that all they will be is somewhat technologically
more advanced -- that's not "smartness."
Are there limits to technology? Those who say "no" are "betting on the come."
No, our knowledge IS imperfect. But at any point we must chart the
most probably course. It has nothing to do with "commies" by the way.
It is a fact that govt' MUST step in to regulate some things -- even
in out free society.
The devil, of course, is in the details.
Burgy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 24 11:07:20 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 24 2008 - 11:07:20 EDT