On 2002-03-29 21:36, Tim Walker wrote:
Why assume that our Crisis will resemble the last one? Why couldn't it more closely resemble some other one?

That was part of my point in the previous posting. It may well resemble a different 4T than the Great Power cycle.

But human nature is such that we tend to look at the most recent 4T for examples, especially since there are still a lot of people with living memory of it. I know of nobody with living memory of the American Civil War, in contrast.

On 2002-03-29 21:55, jds1958xg wrote:

HC, there's another thing you touched upon briefly that would be real 'cool'. The possible consequences of being part of an out-group once some set of ideologues are fully unleashed to run roughshod over individual rights during a 4T. I and my wife are agreed with you on the desirability of the 3T lasting, hopefully, till the end of the decade.

That's part of what I referred to, as you say. Whenever I see someone talking about the upcoming 4T in 'eager' terms, I also usually note a tendency to believe that their group will finally get their way.

Thus, for example, some on each side of the Culture War take it for granted that when the 4T comes, their annoying opponents will finally be out of the way. They usually seem to assume that in an emergency, the 'other side' will realize that the crisis is more important than their own goals and stand aside.

If the two sides retain equal power at the outset, and neither wants to stand aside (Why would they? Each one thinks they are right, or they wouldn't be who and what they are.), then things could sticky.

If one side does gain ascendency early on, being in the losing side could be most unpleasant (if they are lucky!) If they're not lucky, well...that doesn't bear thinking about, really.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-29 22:04 ]</font>

Something else to consider-our Crisis might most closely resemble one from the history of a non-English speaking country. Conceivably one from antiquity.

Perhaps old Heros will sense a Crisis mood but the particular events will seem strange to them.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-29 22:46 ]</font>

Over the years I've developed a theory regarding the people who eagerly await the 4T (or some version of such, generally a major upheaval of American and /or world society). They seem to think that the 4T will be an especially exciting TV show that they can tune into every evening, get their grins, and then send out for pizza or whatever.
They neglect to consider that they will be actually *living* through the times to come and that those times might actually be rather un-fun, perhaps even scary. and hungry...ever consider a 4T experience that included being real hungry? for a long, long time?
But that unpleasant stuff only happens to those funny looking people who live way over *there*. Not to us. no no never.
If it does happen that we're "stuck" in that dull old 3T for while longer, I'll take it.

"Over the years I've developed a theory regarding the people who eagerly await the 4T."

Quite frankly, I'll never really understand this mentality, but I wrote about this observation in trying to make some sense of it. :???:

The Shadow of Totalitarianism

Letters at 3AM
BY MICHAEL VENTURA

March 22, 2002

(For info and discussion purposes)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...s_ventura.html

Senator Robert C. Byrd, 84-year-old conservative Democrat of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful and knowledgeable elected officials in Washington: "In this war on terrorism, Congress, by and large, has been left to learn about major war-related decisions through newspaper articles. One day we hear that American military advisers are heading to the Philippines. Another day we read that American military personnel may go to the former Soviet republic of Georgia. The next day we are sending advisers into Yemen. And, oh yes, we also learn from news reports that we have a shadow government in our own back yard, composed of unknown bureaucrats, up and running at undisclosed locations, for an indeterminate length of time."

Sen. Byrd and the ranking Republican of the Appropriations Committee, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, asked Homeland Security director Tom Ridge to testify before their committee -- they're curious about how the $38 billion Bush wants for Ridge's office will be spent. Republican Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, ranking GOP member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also wants Congress to hear from Ridge. But Bush refuses to let Ridge testify.

As to that "shadow" government mentioned by Byrd: Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, declared it a mistake for the White House to allow Congress to remain uninformed. The New York Times' Maureen Dowd reported that even Senate majority leader Thomas Daschle hadn't learned of the existence of such a "government" until he'd read of it in The Washington Post . Daschle said, "We have not been informed at all about the role of the shadow government or its whereabouts or what particular responsibilities they have and when they would kick in." Aides to GOP Rep. Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House, said even he had only a vague idea of what was going on -- yet the speaker would be president in an emergency so severe that Bush and Cheney were casualties. Though third in line, even Hastert has been left largely in the dark.

Add Vice-President Cheney's refusal to let our representatives in Congress know whom he met with while forging the Bush energy plan, and the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department's stonewalling toward Congressional oversight committees in regard to FBI actions against the Mafia in Boston (in which, according to conservative NY Times columnist William Safire, "the FBI knowingly let an innocent man rot in prison for 30 years in order to protect the identity of an informant whom they knew had committed the murder"). Reticence on both these issues cannot in any way be justified by claims of national security. Commented Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Burton, in protest: "[The United States] is not a monarchy."

USA Today quoted even Larry Klayman, executive director of the Judicial Watch, a far-right group that hounded President Clinton relentlessly: "This is a case where left and right agree ... True conservatives don't act this way. We see an unprecedented secrecy in this White House that ... we find very disturbing."

You have to step back, take a breath, and realize: Without an active free press (especially The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times ) our elected representatives in Congress would know virtually nothing of most of the major steps the Bush administration has taken not only since September 11, but since last spring. If America means to you a republic governed according to a Constitution that carefully stipulates checks and balances among the White House, Congress, and the judiciary -- a system in which none can overwhelm the others, and in which each is responsible to the others -- then you no longer live in that America. This is not some dire warning about the future. This has happened and is happening. A free press is noting the process step by step; braver members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, have voiced alarm and are attempting legal measures to exercise their constitutional duties (so far to no avail); watchdogs on the right and left agree on the urgency of the situation ... while most citizens say and do nothing, giving tacit approval to a new (yes, new!) de facto system of government that recognizes no obligation to obey or enforce the letter or spirit of the Constitution.

To repeat Klayman's statement (and he should know): "True conservatives don't act this way." A conservative, as I understand the term, believes in a strict (I would say restrictive) interpretation of the Constitution, the primacy of individual and economic liberty, and that the federal government be as confined as possible, ceding most power to state and local elective bodies. That does not describe the Bush administration at all. They ignore Congress almost completely on crucial issues; they feel no obligation to inform American citizens of the White House's deliberations or even of its policies(!), whether or not national security is at stake; they concentrate tremendous power among the very few. That is not conservatism. There is only one word that adequately describes the bent and preference of George W. Bush's White House: Totalitarian.

Which my dictionary defines as: "of or relating to a political regime based on the subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of life esp. by coercive measures; also: advocating, constituting, or characteristic of such a regime."

Under our Constitution, individual citizens elect a president, senators, and representatives, who are answerable to each other. It's a complex, often messy, often raucous, usually unwieldy process -- and was meant to be. The idea of the Founders was that if a law or policy could make it through that funky process, then it was more often than not the will of the people. They designed Congress such that in the House the majority would hold sway and in the Senate minorities had to be taken into account (since any Senator can, at least in theory, obstruct the entire mechanism). To bypass or ignore Congress is to engage in "the subordination of the individual," since in a republican and representative form of government the individual enfranchises, and is in turn enfranchised by, his or her representative. Americans had better get wise that when the White House bypasses Congress it's bypassing you -- subordinating the individual to the state.

Of course any system in which 260 million people exercise joint political power is bound to be conflicted. On a daily basis, a certain amount of aggravation is quite literally the cost of liberty: You can't entirely get your way, but you can be comforted nevertheless by the fact that I can't entirely get mine. It is precisely in how you can't have it all your own way that I am free. It is precisely in how I can't have it all my own way that you are free. What's most frustrating about the American system -- the difficulty we each have of getting precisely our own way -- is the very condition and assurance of our liberty. I can't make you live as I would want and you can't make me live as you would want. Therefore, I'm free from you and you're free from me. It always seems as though the other side is winning more than we are and certainly more than we'd like. But your frustration is the measure of my freedom and mine is the measure of yours. So it's good that we're aggravated -- because we can accurately gauge the available freedom by the extent of our own aggravation. You'll be pissed off one day, or one decade, and I'll be pissed off another. Because we can't entirely have our way. If I could you wouldn't be free and if you could I wouldn't be free. Welcome to America as the Founders envisioned America.

But that's not the America of the George W. Bush White House -- not before September 11, and certainly not since. The cruel, gruesome fact is that September 11 is the best thing that ever happened to the Bush totalitarians: They have shamelessly taken advantage of the 3,000 who innocently died ... the sacrifice of hundreds of New York cops and firemen ... and of the immortal "Let's roll" of the citizens on that airliner, people whose democratic ideals went so deep that in the midst of the worst possible crisis they voted on what to do next. The George W. Bush White House is using the agony and nobility of those victims and heroes as an excuse to ignore their Constitution. Which could turn out to be the most dangerous travesty in which any American presidency has ever indulged.

Citizens, we must let them know what our Constitution means to us. We must assert our rights and force this administration to be republican democrats. What's at stake goes beyond any affiliation with left, center, or right. We can get back to those old arguments when we're once again governed by the principles of our Constitution.

On 2002-03-29 22:02, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-03-29 21:55, jds1958xg wrote:

HC, there's another thing you touched upon briefly that would be real 'cool'. The possible consequences of being part of an out-group once some set of ideologues are fully unleashed to run roughshod over individual rights during a 4T. I and my wife are agreed with you on the desirability of the 3T lasting, hopefully, till the end of the decade.

That's part of what I referred to, as you say. Whenever I see someone talking about the upcoming 4T in 'eager' terms, I also usually note a tendency to believe that their group will finally get their way.

Thus, for example, some on each side of the Culture War take it for granted that when the 4T comes, their annoying opponents will finally be out of the way. They usually seem to assume that in an emergency, the 'other side' will realize that the crisis is more important than their own goals and stand aside.

If the two sides retain equal power at the outset, and neither wants to stand aside (Why would they? Each one thinks they are right, or they wouldn't be who and what they are.), then things could sticky.

If one side does gain ascendency early on, being in the losing side could be most unpleasant (if they are lucky!) If they're not lucky, well...that doesn't bear thinking about, really.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-29 22:04 ]</font>

My thoughts exactly. In the case of both sides entering a 4T with seemingly equal strength, we already have an example from American history: that 'little spat' called the Civil War, which was as sticky as things get. Especially since each side back then also expected that with one more show of strength and resolve, the other would back down, admit their errors, and change their ways. As for the other situation, we've seen enough examples of that from the last century in other countries to leave nothing to the imagination. And I'm not at all sure of how truly devoted either side in the Culture War is to the human rights of those they perceive to be their enemies. Given the attitudes present on both sides, I don't think 'enemies' is too strong a word to use in that context. In fact, some Culture Warriors I've talked to don't assume that their adversaries will just stand aside. Rather, they see the 4T as their opportunity to crush their adversaries once and for all.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-03-30 13:46 ]</font>

On 2002-03-29 22:41, Tim Walker wrote:
Something else to consider-our Crisis might most closely resemble one from the history of a non-English speaking country. Conceivably one from antiquity.

Might you have in mind, Tim, The Fall Of The Roman Empire? That would be my own worst case scenario, too.

I must admit to HC that I may sometimes appear "gleeful" at the prospect of the current/approaching 4T. But it isn't really glee, in the sense that I believe that the 4T will be "cool". Far from it. It's more of a readiness to "get on with it" if The End Of The World As We Know It is indeed upon us, to relieve the anxiety over waiting for all hell to finally break loose.

Might you have in mind, Tim, The Fall Of The Roman Empire? That would be my own worst case scenario, too.

I must admit to HC that I may sometimes appear "gleeful" at the prospect of the current/approaching 4T. But it isn't really glee, in the sense that I believe that the 4T will be "cool". Far from it. It's more of a readiness to "get on with it" if The End Of The World As We Know It is indeed upon us, to relieve the anxiety over waiting for all hell to finally break loose.

There's no telling how a 4T will turn out, and if it comes early (as this one may have, if it has started), the outcome is more likely to be a bad one, one that could throw us into antiquity or worse.

There is a progression of Crisis outcomes ranging from bad to good:

1. All life is destroyed on the planet

2. Life remains, but humanity is wiped out

3. Only a few humans remain, probably from polar regions (who are more likely to have remained neutral during a conflict) who are forced to eventually revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and don't rediscover what we call modernity for many thousands of years

4. Modernity is wiped out, but civilization is not. There are far fewer humans, and little or no technology, and humanity reverts to a new Dark Age or feudal system. Agriculture remains, and people must grow their own food and weave their own clothing.

5. Modernity is not wiped out, but America as we know it is destroyed, and is taken over by another nation who introduces a new form of government.

6. America is not wiped out but is thrust into a long and deep depression, or has its former power stripped away, much as Britain did following WW2. It becomes a shell of its old self, and no longer is a world power.

7. America remains more or less the same, but perhaps somewhat altered, as it has following most wars.

8. America enters a financial and technological boom, and everyone is able to live much better than before, with more material comforts. Think American High

In Outcomes 1-4, the Saecular cycle is halted completely.
In Outcomes 5 and 6, the saecular cycle *may* continue, but is probably thrown off course, or altered. (Civil War anomaly)
In Outcomes 7 and 8, the saecular cycle will continue unaltered.

_________________
Labels tell you where the box is coming from and where it is headed and are quite helpful. They do not tell you what's inside though they might indicate "fragile", "handle with care", "this is not a Bill", "magnetic medium", etc.--VIRGIL K. SAARI

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2002-03-30 20:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-31 18:42 ]</font>

I wish.

On 2002-03-30 20:47, Susan Brombacher wrote:


There's no telling how a 4T will turn out, and if it comes early (as this one may have, if it has started), the outcome is more likely to be a bad one, one that could throw us into antiquity or worse.

There is a progression of Crisis outcomes ranging from bad to good:

1. All life is destroyed on the planet

2. Life remains, but humanity is wiped out

3. Only a few humans remain, probably from polar regions (who are more likely to have remained neutral during a conflict) who are forced to eventually revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and don't rediscover what we call modernity for many thousands of years

4. Modernity is wiped out, but civilization is not. There are far fewer humans, and little or no technology, and humanity reverts to a new Dark Age or feudal system. Agriculture remains, and people must grow their own food and weave their own clothing.

I consider possibilities 1 through 4 to be radically improbable. Indeed, for personal religious reasons I regard possibilities 1 and 2 to be impossible, but that's just my own faith. Even absent that, the odds of it happening in the upcoming 4T are super-super-slim.

5. Modernity is not wiped out, but America as we know it is destroyed, and is taken over by another nation who introduces a new form of government.

Item 5 could conceivably happen in the upcoming 4T, and actually covers a range of possibilities. I wouldn't say it's likely, but it's far from impossible.

6. America is not wiped out but is thrust into a long and deep depression, or has its former power stripped away, much as Britain did following WW2. It becomes a shell of its old self, and no longer is a world power.

Quite possible, though it too actually is a range of possibilities. It's a little difficult to see how America could lose her power totally without a disaster that also upends the entire West, since America has no real successor in sight. In the case of Britain, it was clear for most to see that the succesor, should the Empire fall, would be either America or Germany.

7. America remains more or less the same, but perhaps somewhat altered, as it has following most wars.

8. America enters a financial and technological boom, and everyone is able to live much better than before, with more material comforts. Think American High

I can think of other possibilities 'between' 7 and 8. The 4T could go distinctly badly, leaving America weaker than now, but it could at the same time weaken everyone else even more. That would leave a damaged and limping America still dominant, perhaps even more dominant relatively speaking, but still be a very bad 4T for all concerned. In such a case, we would have a 1T but no true High.

Much depends, of course, on the specific nature of the Crisis, be it successful or failed. Success or failure both cover a range of possibilities.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-30 22:59 ]</font>

On 2002-03-30 21:39, Tim Walker wrote:
An implication of the Culture Wars turning into a civil war is that of a Nomad revolt. Boomers would be thrown out of power by Xers, who would probably distain both sides. And the Xers would become a Civic-Nomad hybrid with their own agenda.

Possible.

It is also possible that the Xers would split along the fracture lines (maybe or maybe not in equal proportions). Note that the Revolutionary War (itself a civil war in the early stages) did not result in a Liberty Generation revolt.

Whether the Gilded revolted is open to question. They certainly revolted AFTER the war, but during it they split along the fracture line.

On 2002-03-29 23:53, alan wrote:
Over the years I've developed a theory regarding the people who eagerly await the 4T (or some version of such, generally a major upheaval of American and /or world society). They seem to think that the 4T will be an especially exciting TV show that they can tune into every evening, get their grins, and then send out for pizza or whatever.
They neglect to consider that they will be actually *living* through the times to come and that those times might actually be rather un-fun, perhaps even scary. and hungry...ever consider a 4T experience that included being real hungry? for a long, long time?
But that unpleasant stuff only happens to those funny looking people who live way over *there*. Not to us. no no never.
If it does happen that we're "stuck" in that dull old 3T for while longer, I'll take it.

That is a VERY good way to put it. The TV show effect, I like that way to think of it.
I've probably been guilty of that myself at times, for that matter.

Of course, TV cuts both ways.

It used to be fairly common that when a war broke out after a long period of peace, a lot of young people would get all excited about it. A break in the boredom, a chance to show off, etc. This was especially pronounced at the start of the American Civil War.

Remember that famous scene at the start of the movie Gone With The Wind, where all the young Southern hotheads were boasting about what they would do in the brief upcoming war, when the Yankees would back down when they saw the South was serious?

That wasn't really far off. That's pretty close to a common attitude of the time, as was evinced when a big chunk of the Washington D.C. upper classes decided, on the occasion of the Battle of First Bull Run, to take a picnic lunch to a war.

I mean that quite literally. Of course, the glamorous clash of noble arms of the field of battle was interrupted by a bloody mass of screw ups, sweating, screaming, maimings, and gory death as the actual fighting started, and when the battle turned against the Union, the retreat of the U.S. Army got all tangled up in the retreat of the picnic lunch crowd, who began to panic as the realization set in that war is not really all that much fun.

One side effect of modern telecommunications is that today, people who care to pay attention should know better than that, even after a long period of peace. In those days, the only source of information about previous real war after long peaceful periods would be the recollections of old men and printed words, neither of which has the immediacy of pictures.

It's an interesting question whether TV makes big wars more likely or less, whether it conditions us to think of real world war as being like a movie, or helps us remember how unglamorous real fighting is. It certainly does both, but which is the stronger?

On 2002-03-30 20:17, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:


I must admit to HC that I may sometimes appear "gleeful" at the prospect of the current/approaching 4T. But it isn't really glee, in the sense that I believe that the 4T will be "cool". Far from it. It's more of a readiness to "get on with it" if The End Of The World As We Know It is indeed upon us, to relieve the anxiety over waiting for all hell to finally break loose.

I can understand that. Heck, I've probably been guilty of it myself. There is a human tendency to take a nasty satisfaction in being proven right, even when you are proven right about a very nasty predicition, and I'm not better about it than anyone else.

But I try to keep something else in mind that I read a long time ago, that struck me as truth, to set against that tendency to let the future dominate the present.

Even if all we love must perish or suffer from great loss, if all else be equal is it not better that it perish a year from now than tomorrow? If we delay that death by a year, what do we gain?

We gain a year in which husbands and wives can potentially experience another 365 days of loving each other, in which children can play and dream for another 365 days, during which countless people can appreciate the joys and successes of their own lives. We would gain a year in that delay, and during that year would not people know joy and hope and dreams and life?

Are not these things worthwhile in themselves?

On 2002-03-30 22:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-03-30 20:47, Susan Brombacher wrote:


There's no telling how a 4T will turn out, and if it comes early (as this one may have, if it has started), the outcome is more likely to be a bad one, one that could throw us into antiquity or worse.

There is a progression of Crisis outcomes ranging from bad to good:

1. All life is destroyed on the planet

2. Life remains, but humanity is wiped out

3. Only a few humans remain, probably from polar regions (who are more likely to have remained neutral during a conflict) who are forced to eventually revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and don't rediscover what we call modernity for many thousands of years

4. Modernity is wiped out, but civilization is not. There are far fewer humans, and little or no technology, and humanity reverts to a new Dark Age or feudal system. Agriculture remains, and people must grow their own food and weave their own clothing.

I consider possibilities 1 through 4 to be radically improbable. Indeed, for personal religious reasons I regard possibilities 1 and 2 to be impossible, but that's just my own faith. Even absent that, the odds of it happening in the upcoming 4T are super-super-slim.

5. Modernity is not wiped out, but America as we know it is destroyed, and is taken over by another nation who introduces a new form of government.

Item 5 could conceivably happen in the upcoming 4T, and actually covers a range of possibilities. I wouldn't say it's likely, but it's far from impossible.

6. America is not wiped out but is thrust into a long and deep depression, or has its former power stripped away, much as Britain did following WW2. It becomes a shell of its old self, and no longer is a world power.

Quite possible, though it too actually is a range of possibilities. It's a little difficult to see how America could lose her power totally without a disaster that also upends the entire West, since America has no real successor in sight. In the case of Britain, it was clear for most to see that the succesor, should the Empire fall, would be either America or Germany.

7. America remains more or less the same, but perhaps somewhat altered, as it has following most wars.

8. America enters a financial and technological boom, and everyone is able to live much better than before, with more material comforts. Think American High

I can think of other possibilities 'between' 7 and 8. The 4T could go distinctly badly, leaving America weaker than now, but it could at the same time weaken everyone else even more. That would leave a damaged and limping America still dominant, perhaps even more dominant relatively speaking, but still be a very bad 4T for all concerned. In such a case, we would have a 1T but no true High.

Much depends, of course, on the specific nature of the Crisis, be it successful or failed. Success or failure both cover a range of possibilities.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-30 22:59 ]</font>

This is how I would grade Susan Brombacher's and Hopeful Cynic's range of possibilities, FWIW.

Scenario 1: Would take more than us to pull off.

Scenarios 2 thru 4: Variations on a radical environmentalist's dream come true.

Scenarios 5 and 6: I can think of a lot of radical leftists who would like to see 5, especially, but could live with 6.

Scenarios 7 and 7a: Along with 5 or 6, I can see these as the four most likely ones to come about.

Scenarion 8: Sorry, but I have a hard time being that optimistic.

As HC said, we'll just have to stay tuned, to see what does transpire. (Please pardon my use of TV lingo.)

On 2002-03-30 23:22, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-03-30 20:17, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:


I must admit to HC that I may sometimes appear "gleeful" at the prospect of the current/approaching 4T. But it isn't really glee, in the sense that I believe that the 4T will be "cool". Far from it. It's more of a readiness to "get on with it" if The End Of The World As We Know It is indeed upon us, to relieve the anxiety over waiting for all hell to finally break loose.

I can understand that. Heck, I've probably been guilty of it myself. There is a human tendency to take a nasty satisfaction in being proven right, even when you are proven right about a very nasty predicition, and I'm not better about it than anyone else.

But I try to keep something else in mind that I read a long time ago, that struck me as truth, to set against that tendency to let the future dominate the present.

Even if all we love must perish or suffer from great loss, if all else be equal is it not better that it perish a year from now than tomorrow? If we delay that death by a year, what do we gain?

We gain a year in which husbands and wives can potentially experience another 365 days of loving each other, in which children can play and dream for another 365 days, during which countless people can appreciate the joys and successes of their own lives. We would gain a year in that delay, and during that year would not people know joy and hope and dreams and life?

Are not these things worthwhile in themselves?

Very good point, HC!!! Those things ARE worthwhile in and of themselves, and every extra year spent enjoying them is a blessing from whatever Higher Power you believe in - especially now.

Why is there only one "good" outcome of the 4T? Is everyone this pessimistic about our long term future?

On 2002-03-31 10:03, madscientist wrote:
Why is there only one "good" outcome of the 4T? Is everyone this pessimistic about our long term future?

Take heart, Robert. My wife agrees with you on that one, and is holding out for what I called Scenario #8. In fact, sometimes I even allow myself to hope for that one.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-03-31 10:25 ]</font>

On 2002-03-31 10:03, madscientist wrote:
Why is there only one "good" outcome of the 4T? Is everyone this pessimistic about our long term future?

There may be only one "good" outcome if you're a traditional thinker, but as HC pointed out, some radical environmentalists may actually find Outcomes 3-6 to be "good" as well (I don't really know about #2, but maybe militant environmentalist organizations like EarthFirst wouldn't mind that one) What's a good outcome anyway? Is it really "good" to keep growing as a superpower, or is it possible that perhaps we could really better off in the long run having to begin from scratch.

To me "good" means a constructive resolution to a Crisis period. I therefore reject scenarios as "good" if they slaughter vast numbers of people, impoverish them, degrade their spirits, or obliterate the best of the past.

On 2002-03-31 10:03, madscientist wrote:
Why is there only one "good" outcome of the 4T? Is everyone this pessimistic about our long term future?

What's wrong with number 4? It would seem just as "good" as the other "good" one, whichever that might be.

Human beings doing fruitful labor, this is a bad thing? Do advise.

On 2002-03-30 20:47, Susan Brombacher wrote:


There is a progression of Crisis outcomes ranging from bad to good:



4. Modernity is wiped out, but civilization is not. There are far fewer humans, and little or no technology, and humanity reverts to a new Dark Age or feudal system. Agriculture remains, and people must grow their own food and weave their own clothing.

Mr. Loyd would still be building, Mr. Meece would still draw horoscopes, Mr. Marc Lamb could still preach, I could still raise cattle, Mr. Reed could be an alchemist with an abacus, there would be mead klatches, Ms. Brombacher would have plenty of time to write, etc. etc.


There probably is a downside to this though. HTH

___PS: There still would be people doing it.



______________
"I often think it odd that [History] should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention." Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey, Chapter XIV

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-03-31 11:47 ]</font>

On 2002-03-31 10:50, Susan Brombacher wrote:

On 2002-03-31 10:03, madscientist wrote:
Why is there only one "good" outcome of the 4T? Is everyone this pessimistic about our long term future?

There may be only one "good" outcome if you're a traditional thinker, but as HC pointed out, some radical environmentalists may actually find Outcomes 3-6 to be "good" as well (I don't really know about #2, but maybe militant environmentalist organizations like EarthFirst wouldn't mind that one) What's a good outcome anyway? Is it really "good" to keep growing as a superpower, or is it possible that perhaps we could really better off in the long run having to begin from scratch.

Sure, many radical environmentalists might like options 3 - 6, but remember that in the last saeculum, William Jennings Bryant, who had a popular following, would've preferred the same. I really doubt that society will turn its back on technology, as technology is required to solve the environmental crisis.

I agree that America can't keep growing as a superpower. However, I don't think that it will necessarily mean a regression for America in any way.

One way to solve the dilemna is to ask, what are the issues of this 4T, and how can they intermingle to form a pleasing result?

So, what is the ultimate issue of this 4T? Of course, I've always said "oil", but it goes even deeper than that. This 4T is about building a global civilization. This is about creating the political and economic instutitions that will be able to sustain human civilization on a global scale.

In the 1960s, Soviet astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev created a classification system for detectable extraterrestrial civilizations. The first is a Type I Civilization, which is one that has achieved mastery over its home planet. The second is a Type II Civilization, which has achieved mastery over its entire star system. A Type III Civilization has mastered its entire galaxy.

We have not yet achieved Type I status, but it is likely that this 4T will help to propel us to that stage.

Already, the next technological revolution that will turn the world upside-down has started, and it is the first age of nanotechnology, as carbon nanotubes are going on mass production, and televisions featuring this new technology will go on market as early as 2003. Because of nanotubes, there is bound to be a revolution in every technological industry. Alternative energy will become feasible, the space elevator will become both technologically and financially feasible.

I'm not sure what the new political structure will exactly be, but if we are successful, we will definitely see a planetary civilization by the 2020s, with local control. It is likely that the aftermath of this 4T will improve living standards worldwide, as new technologies and new methods of political organization allow the so-caled third world to rapidly industrialize.

The Biotech Revolution will likely cure many, many diseases. Cancer is on its way out, and several forms are curable. By analyzing the DNA/RNA structure of virii and bacteria, we will be able to create new defenses.

The Internet Revolution is not over, and broadband will become as widespread as television.

Also, I think that we will successfully get past this 4T because we have already found solutions to many of our problems. We can solve the water shortage problem by pumping directly from the oceans, and building large networks of pipes across the continents. Because of the probability of earthquakes, it will be best to build flexible pipes. The energy problem has several solutions. Of course, the Space Solar Power concept is one, and the space elevator will make it's fruition very feasible. Then there are OTECs. The food shortage problem can also be solved with ocean farming, hydroponics (and related technologies) food production, etc. We can solve the problem of environmental destruction that comes from intensive agriculture. We can solve our problems...and then some!!

The next set of problems are organizational and political. The organizational problems can be solved, and this is what 4Ts do. The political problems, however, will need much more working out. The problem is not creating "global order", but rather "global balance". This means changing the global economic structure to create equal trade opportunities for each society and each nation. This means creating a global Bill of Rights that EVERYONE (at least on the landmasses of Earth) has to follow. It is likely that nations will lose sovereignty to global organizations. However, this global order will be balanced by local control.

Since we can practically solve all of our world problems, we only need to build new institutions to put these ideas into practice.

When we do that, by 2030, the world will have become a Type I Civilization. We will live in the Age of Science Fiction, in which science fiction of the 20th century has become reality by that time. This would mean a standard of living far beyond that of today, while keeping the Earth's ecosystems in order, and protecting life on this planet. Moreover, these need not be temporary fixes. We can solve these once and for all. So there is a lot of room for there to be progression instead of regression.

Robert, I love your optimistic vision. I hope that you and your fellow Millies can pull it off. :grin:

I'm trying to be optimistic myself about the upcoming Crisis. It's awfully hard these days with all the chaos going on in Israel. :sad: