On 2001-12-28 12:46, Dave'71 wrote:
...
If dream-world ever becomes hard reality, which it may, we may enter the realm of history in which science fiction becomes reality. But don't count on that world to be limitless, because even personal dreams have limits. There is only one dream that has no limits: that is the dream of the Father.

Personal dreams have limits, but the dreams of the whole are limitless. From my (atheistic) perspective, I find the dream of the Father very limiting.

Madscientist might respond "If you build it, they will come," but remember, "they" might revolt when they get here.

Sadly, many people will revolt.

To return this tangent back to the original question, Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning?: 911 was partly due to the fact that the "laws" necessary to allow the existence of highly-integrated technology compromise various ways of life that are more closely rooted to the earth and to various perceptions of what God is.

That's true. I'm starting to think that luddites and neophiles may need to build their own societies.

[quotes]Not everyone will become servants of technology. The more integrated technology becomes, an essential component to its advancement, the more easily it will be disturbed by challenging ideologies.[/quote]

That's true. But however, our level of social development always catches up eventually. So eventually, our ideological development wraps itself around the technology that exists at the time.

"Terrorism" inflicted upon the technological infrastructure will be easier to perform and more damaging as technology becomes more advanced; which is just one more reason why technology has its limits.

Sadly, this is also true. The only way to solve this problem, however, is to expand to new frontiers.

With terrorism in mind, we may have to accept limits to the degree we meddle in the affairs of other societies. We should make long range plans for disengagement from the middle east.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2001-12-28 21:06 ]</font>

On 2001-12-28 21:01, Tim Walker wrote:
With terrorism in mind, we may have to accept limits to the degree we meddle in the affairs of other societies.

Unfortunately, as technology shrinks the world in terms of communication and travel time, we meddle in each others' societies simply by virtue of existing.

On 2001-12-28 21:07, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
...
Unfortunately, as technology shrinks the world in terms of communication and travel time, we meddle in each others' societies simply by virtue of existing.

And because of this, I think that it is urgent that we begin the industrialization and colonization of space.

But we should also do what we can to wean ourselves from Middle East oil. This has some urgency. But I agree that space is the key to Western civilization's future.

Space has no future.

On 2001-12-28 21:14, madscientist wrote:
And because of this, I think that it is urgent that we begin the industrialization and colonization of space.

If we can't do it here, why should we be able to do it elsewhere? And if we are to get it right here, why would we ever want to go elsewhere?

The Great Divorce will be reconciled and abandonment will no longer be desired.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dave'71 on 2001-12-29 07:59 ]</font>

On 2001-12-29 07:56, Dave'71 wrote:

On 2001-12-28 21:14, madscientist wrote:
And because of this, I think that it is urgent that we begin the industrialization and colonization of space.

If we can't do it here, why should we be able to do it elsewhere? And if we are to get it right here, why would we ever want to go elsewhere?

The Great Divorce will be reconciled and abandonment will no longer be desired.

Part of the problem here on Earth is the population problem, and this can easily be solved by going into space. Also, going into space will teach us valuable lessons on how to sustain Earth, as it will be impossible to do the same things in space as done on Earth.

And if we do finally do it, why do we want to go anyway? There is no one true answer. Perhaps, people are natural explorers. Perhaps, people like a challenge. Maybe people think that they have found a better way to live, and want to build a new society to set an example. Or maybe someone wants to spread life throughout the solar system.

On 2001-12-29 07:56, Dave'71 wrote:

If we can't do it here, why should we be able to do it elsewhere? And if we are to get it right here, why would we ever want to go elsewhere?

India VS Pakistan....How do we meddle in that? Now Pakistan is talking about moving its troops on the Afhanistan boarder to the Indian boarder. Shades of Risk.

On 2001-12-29 10:28, rc51 wrote:

On 2001-12-29 07:56, Dave'71 wrote:

If we can't do it here, why should we be able to do it elsewhere? And if we are to get it right here, why would we ever want to go elsewhere?

Here is one article I've written on this: http://www.geocities.com/mad_scienti...emusings1.html

But here is one thing that I didn't include in the article: only a very small fraction of the human population will want to migrate into space, for whatever reason. If Earth was doomed, then most people still wouldn't want to live in space to save Earth. If we solve all of our problems on Earth (which is an impossibility), then there will still be the few who thinks we should expand into space.

If history shows us correct, then less than 1% of the total human population would seriously want to leave Earth and live in space. Even if one in ten thousand seriously wanted to live in space, that would still mean that 600,000 people on Earth would want to do so. If we are talking about just America, then this figure would be 28,000. Today, we have more than enough people from all walks of life, and all ideologies who want to colonize space. In fact, the Space Frontier Foundation is headed by two people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Basically, space enthusiasts have a few things in common. They like the search for novelty, and like progress in mans ability to do and think.

The obvious synthesis is to use space to help solve our problems here on Earth. Consider satellites-weather, communications, navigation, etc. are used to provide services down here on Earth. It has been suggested that resource shortages will be the heart of our Crisis. Consider the concepts for importing energy or materials from space. My point is to use space to adequately provide for peoples' material needs-thus allowing them to pursue self-actualization (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs) or a higher plane of civilization-while sparing the biosphere.

On 2001-12-29 11:09, madscientist wrote:

If Earth was doomed, then most people still wouldn't want to live in space to save Earth.

On 2001-12-29 11:09, madscientist wrote:
Even if one in ten thousand seriously wanted to live in space, that would still mean that 600,000 people on Earth would want to do so.

Practical impossibility sending 1000.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: rc51 on 2001-12-29 13:43 ]</font>

On 2001-12-29 13:40, rc51 wrote:

On 2001-12-29 11:09, madscientist wrote:
Even if one in ten thousand seriously wanted to live in space, that would still mean that 600,000 people on Earth would want to do so.

Practical impossibility sending 1000.

It is today, but if you read Mining The Sky, or Entering Space, it comes clear that the problem is not technology or engineering, but rather, institutional.

On 2001-12-29 13:45, madscientist wrote:

It is today,

Only "today" really matters.

Robert, please read Robert.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...rum=12&start=0

People will go into space for many of the same reasons they left Europe for America:

to seek fortunes, to attain military advantage, to escape "religious" (21st cen. equiv. "ideological") persecution, to live more freely, and to escape the bounds of earth simply out of wanderlust.

The biggest problem: access to low earth orbit. It is too expensive. Hopefully the private sector will succeed in getting us there where governments have failed.

Marc, you may be right!

As time passes, I am thinking that one of your core points -- that too many Silents are still in power -- is what has prevented 911 from being The Catalyst. The past few months have been much less tumultuous than I was anticipating 120 days ago; the US response abroad has been much more typical of a 3T and the partisan bickering over domestic concerns continues unabated, after a brief interruption.

On the other hand, the Patriot Act does seem to represent the darker aspect of a 4T; I believe we are closer to 4T than Marc imagines. Also, the first few months of 1930 were calm and even hopeful, as the stock market was enjoying a bit of a recovery. People were still worried about prohibition and crime then, not yet unemployment. Is it March 1930 again?

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how things proceed. In 2002 and 2004, you will see lots of Silents leaders retiring voluntarily or involuntarily; I would expect however, that Gen-X'ers will becoming a growing share of Congress (the leading edge will be early to mid-forties in 2004). One saving grace is that the Boomer cohort is only 18 years, much less than the 30 years of the Transcendental Generation that caused so much havoc two saeculi ago.

On 2001-12-29 14:05, rc51 wrote:
Robert, please read Robert.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...rum=12&start=0

There are two ways to look at it. It's true, for the time being we have hit a plateau. If Spengler was right, then this plateau is actually likely to last for several centuries, not because no more possibilities exist, but because the West as a society is getting too tired and 'set' to take advantage of new possibilities.

On the other hand, it's also possible that a lot of the problem will vanish when the Silent/Boom dominant coalition is replaced with the Xer/Millenial coalition. Reactive/Civic combos are inherently more well-disposed to technological advances (in large scale implementation) than are Adaptive/Civic groupings.

On 2001-12-29 00:48, rc51 wrote:
Space has no future.

All women secretly have electric blue hair, and dye it to fool males.

Anyone can make a statement with no explanation of why it should be considered true.

On 2001-12-29 13:53, rc51 wrote:

On 2001-12-29 13:45, madscientist wrote:

It is today,

Only "today" really matters.

Remind me never to let you handle my investments or my medical treatment.

On 2002-01-08 11:18, Jenny Genser wrote:
Marc, you may be right!

As time passes, I am thinking that one of your core points -- that too many Silents are still in power -- is what has prevented 911 from being The Catalyst. The past few months have been much less tumultuous than I was anticipating 120 days ago; the US response abroad has been much more typical of a 3T and the partisan bickering over domestic concerns continues unabated, after a brief interruption.

When 911 happened, I underestimated the Silents. I didn't think, based on how the Boomers had been elbowing them aside, that they'd be able to hang on against the pressure, but I was wrong. I now strongly suspect that Marc is right, and that we are in 3T, though the Boomers will have another shot at making it happen this election.

The Silent have really gone into smooth operation in government since 911. We did see a lot of officials, columnists, and the like calling for massive war, for nuclear weapons, for world-wide crusades, but I'm reminded of someone frantically pushing buttons and pulling levels on a machine that somebody else (the Silent) have removed a key component from. The 4T machine isn't on-line right this minute.

On the other hand, the Patriot Act does seem to represent the darker aspect of a 4T; I believe we are closer to 4T than Marc imagines. Also, the first few months of 1930 were calm and even hopeful, as the stock market was enjoying a bit of a recovery. People were still worried about prohibition and crime then, not yet unemployment. Is it March 1930 again?

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how things proceed. In 2002 and 2004, you will see lots of Silents leaders retiring voluntarily or involuntarily; I would expect however, that Gen-X'ers will becoming a growing share of Congress (the leading edge will be early to mid-forties in 2004). One saving grace is that the Boomer cohort is only 18 years, much less than the 30 years of the Transcendental Generation that caused so much havoc two saeculi ago.

The down side is, if we lack a clear, powerful common foe, then the temptation to try the 'quick and forceful' route internally might increase for some faction or other.

There are still a lot of ways in which our current situation reminds me more of 1850 than it does of the 1920s.

Still, right now should , by the S^H theory, be the very height of the 3T, as Marc has pointed out. The generations are almost precisely in their 3T constellation right now.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-01-08 20:48 ]</font>

On 2001-12-29 14:48, jcarson71 wrote:
People will go into space for many of the same reasons they left Europe for America:

to seek fortunes, to attain military advantage, to escape "religious" (21st cen. equiv. "ideological") persecution, to live more freely, and to escape the bounds of earth simply out of wanderlust.

The biggest problem: access to low earth orbit. It is too expensive. Hopefully the private sector will succeed in getting us there where governments have failed.

Don't bet on it. Here I find myself often at odds with other conservatives, because I have to say that the only organization remotely likely to do the early work of opening space is the federal government (if we're lucky) or some other national government (if we're not).

It's going to take deep pockets (yes, it could be done more cheaply and efficiently than the Shuttle, but it will be expensive, especially at first), large resources, and a long time scale. The private sector has a hard time with these three, because long-term projects don't usually pay off fast enough to interest the venture capitalists.

Now, it might conceivably be done by a private organization with government funding and charter, but that's a hybrid case.

Historically, opening frontiers has usually been the work of government organizations. Columbus was financed by the Spanish Crown. Lewis and Clark were financed by the Federal Government (and possibly also by private sources as well).

The U.S. Army did much of the early survey and exploration of the American west. Government action was intimately involved in the creation of the trans-continental railroads.

I don't think waiting for the free market to do the job by itself is practical. The free market may very well do the job, though, with a modicum of government help. The real question is how to get the idea acted upon. Truthfully, it probably won't be while the Silent/Boom alignment controls the United States Government. But things change.

On 2002-01-08 20:27, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
It's true, for the time being we have hit a plateau. If Spengler was right, then this plateau is actually likely to last for several centuries,

"Today" = Several Centuries

I think Jenny Genser is right, the substantial Silent presence has prevented the escalation of 911 into the 4T. Though the mood of urgency hinted that we are near the Crisis constellation. My hope is that, a few years down the road, that a residue of Silent influence and the growing Xer influence will temper Boomer ruthlessness. And prevent WWIII.