From:       wor@slac.stanford.edu
Subject:     Re: Interesting Reading
Date:     December 4, 2007 7:30:37 PM EST
To:       chris@smallisbeautiful.org

Hey Chris,

Feel free to post it on your blog.

Give an extreme lack of data regarding the future, I totally agree with your synopsis.

I think it’s safe to say – We’re pretty sure we’re going to see some significant changes – in the coming decade, but not too sure how bad its going to be.
I can supply some current references.

I believe that given an infinite amount of time, education and the creation of incentive systems, would be enough to change our culture into a more equal and just one.

“Why settle for anything less?”
So essentially its a risk analysis problem – that is really hard to asses.
Firstly – If we actually saw a tornado coming at us it may not be a good time to be working on family dynamics. Not enough data?
Secondly what other options do we personally have? I assume the rich elite have their vast think-tanks with smart people thinking of all these scenarios. . . . data?

I don’t actually think we’re dealing with a black and white Mt. Doom situation here – i.e. As far as our goal is seeing the evolution of diverse, complex, abundant, collectively intelligent life. I don’t actually think the world’s elite want to see any species wiped off the planet. . . ?
I see Humanity as immature and the elite that would and do take advantage of the poor as an emergent phenomena. But a world run by those people still has the possibility of learning, changing, and promoting complex diverse life.

Are we willing to change strategies based on new information?
Lets say we have a decade before economic collapse and massive crop failure. Lets say Lovelock is right and 6 billion will die.
Or what if it will be very gradual … 100 years before seeing change ….etc.

I totally believe in educational and economic solutions toward the world problems – but the doomsday scenario throws a monkey wrench in things. But in the end I personally don’t have another choice right now – other than to put one foot in front of the other and deal with the information I have and look for more.

Best,

-Will

Chris Lindstrom wrote:
Hey Will,

My answer is that there really is no definitive answer out there.  We have to choose which one we are going to fight for.  We may be wrong but thats better than settling on the doomsday scenario, supporting the benevolent elite, and then finding that the doomsday scenario was not as bad as we thought it would be but in the process the benevolent elite morphed into the malevolent elite who have decided to recreate the system (just like frodo’s hesitation to destroy the ring at mt. doom).  I think that in reality, we must fight for the possibility of a ’synergic,’ as Bucky would call it, future.  That’s the win win future.  I think that when and if human beings realize collective, synergetic consciousness, we will be able feed 6 billion people, create a more egalitarian society, and help heal the environment at the same time.  Why settle for anything less?  An elite society that survives the apocalypse at the expense of the poor and the disenfranchised does not deserve to inherit the earth.  That’s my view.
-Chris

On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Will Ruddick wrote:

Hey Chris,

I’ve got no factual information on this – but it was an interesting read.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529 <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529>

I can imagine many many scenarios where a seed vault would be a great idea … I hadn’t thought about what it might mean for corporations trying to profit off GMO foods.

The elitist argument for the future might go something like this – Listening to scientists at NCAR and NOAA in Boulder, we are extremely likely to see massive worldwide drought in  the next eight years. From the economic perspective – this would be also be coupled with failing markets. Perhaps Lovelock is right and we will see 6 billion dead in the next century….. … So those with the most resources should be planning for that future. In the face of impending disaster – redistributing wealth accrossed the billions of people on the planet right now would actually reduce our long term survivability.

I know someone doing a ton of work on making efficient solar greenhouses (hi is trying to build a giant one in downtown in Chicago) I see this along with GMO foods as the technostate solution (small high technology bubbles were Human’s can still live in large groups).

Lets say the 8 year time line is true….
Where does this place the alternative currency movement? At worst it could preemptively take away money from the benevolent elite that are attempting massive conservation efforts.
….. At best it takes money away from the control of the malevolent elite that are focused only on short term profits, ‘creates massive synergy and collective intelligence’, eases the transition.

As usual I don’t have enough information to make a logical decision. . and hence just have to just pick the best direction I can. It’s obvious our debt based currency system is un-sustainable … but it is the relevant lever, given some amount of urgency?

Best,

-Will