Flying Cars...

[xthread]

Some predictions for the next thirty years.

1. We will identify an extrasolar object that is almost certainly life-bearing, as evidenced by being within the habitable zone of some other star, and has high concentrations of O2 in it's atmosphere. No, I have no idea whatsoever what telescopy advancements will allow us to determine that the atmosphere of an extrasolar object has large amounts of free oxygen. I am not an astronomer.
   
2. We will find methods to cure type 1 and type 2 diabetes. There have been a lot of extremely exciting research results released in the last six months, I expect that we'll see those results pay off as we make the leap from lab to hospital.
   
3. We will still not have flying cars. Ok, that one's a cheap shot, we may actually have flying cars, there are running prototypes now, but they're ferociously expensive. I'm also tempted to make other snide predictions like 'we will not be using IPv6,' but that's also just an inflammatory cheap shot.
   
4. We will not see a global economic or environmental collapse of the first world. We will see significant environmental damage from global climate changes. We definitely will see a northern arctic freight passage, and I'll be surprised if we don't see human habitation of the Arctic. As zunger points out, this will be geopolitically... interesting. <cheap shot> especially when large petroleum reserves are discovered in the arctic</cheap shot>
   

Comments

there be method in't

[palecur.livejournal.com]

bring cost and price into alignment (e.g. carbon tax, plus roadbuilding and maintenance funded 100% by gas taxes)

Gas taxes seem like such an inefficient way to achieve that goal -- I should think that privately owned roads, charging by mile driven on the road-owner's property, would be a more direct form of funding roadbuilding and maintenance.

As for the carbon externalities, I'm frankly suspicious of explicitly charging for them -- anything that explicitly reduces life expectancy in an actuarially detectable amount would nigh-automatically be taken care of, economically speaking, through life insurance rates, and if it doesn't reduce life expectancy, why should we care, one way or another?

Re: there be method in't

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

So the impacts of climate change on the (uninsured) third world is morally irrelevant?

And the damage to my quality of life (not life expectancy) resulting from the loss of biodiversity in nature and in the food supply is also irrelevant?

Re: there be method in't

[palecur.livejournal.com]

So the impacts of climate change on the (uninsured) third world is morally irrelevant?

Beg pardon? This is the first mention of climate change yet in the discussion. I've said nothing at all on the topic.

And the damage to my quality of life (not life expectancy) resulting from the loss of biodiversity in nature and in the food supply is also irrelevant?

It certainly is to me. I support making any bits of nature we want to keep around into private preserves, and support the Nature Conservancy's efforts in that direction. The organization gets money from members, spends it to acquire land, then keeps that land free from further interference. Simplicity itself; you get the biodiversity you pay for.

I oppose attempts to enforce a value structure on people who don't share it. I pay for my nature already, and I think it's a good thing to do so -- but I won't pick Joe Escalade's pocket to pay for his nature, on his behalf, for his own good. Such behavior is abhorrent to me.

Re: there be method in't

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

I won't pick Joe Escalade's pocket to pay for his nature, on his behalf, for his own good.

But we already do that with national defense and roads and police and a whole host of other services that just plain ONLY WORK if we do them on a large scale where everyone participates. Nature is no different than those things - it doesn't work if you only do it small scale.

Re: there be method in't

[palecur.livejournal.com]

if we do them on a large scale

Yes.

where everyone participates.

No.

Participation need not be 100%, nor compulsory, to achieve a subscription rate high enough to meet a goal. Yes, the free rider problem remains a problem -- but the use of coercion to solve it is a cure far more toxic than the disease.

Re: there be method in't

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

Your position presupposes that some people have the right to poison, pave, excavate, or otherwise destroy the natural systems that filter our water, recycle our air, and grow our food. I concede no such right.

To hell with protecting Joe Escalade from himself. If he wants to poison his environment, he can do so. But he can't do it to mine. And, inconveniently, we are share the same environment. What he does to his environment, he also does to mine.

Re: there be method in't

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

This is the first mention of climate change yet in the discussion. I've said nothing at all on the topic.

You mentioned "carbon externalities". The most common use of that term is in the context of climate change. There are other interpretations, sure, but that's what I assumed you meant.

However, from the context of your further posts, I now suspect that we have entered that alternate reality known as the Climate Change Denialist Zone.