Today's first pic shows the Swedish austronaut Christer Fuglesang in his full space gear. Not long ago Fuglesang expressed his ideas about technologial and political development.
What is the reason behind the existence of technologists and economists? In their models they tend to think about and address the rest of the world as ceteris paribus (everything else equal). This means in reality that the rest of the World (that is for instance us, their fellow beings and the environment) is outside their models and does not have to be taken into account.
Nice! Take economists and their understanding of growth: It can only occur based on two circumstances; either you engage more consumers or you make the existing consumers to consume more. The mere increase in quantity then produce the growth of an economy. Logically speaking that means that in the end we will run out of resources, sooner or later.
In comes a technologist or even worse a technoeconomist, and claims that the resources are endless as we easily can acquire them from space. This is the reason behind why we are supposed to spend billions and billions on space flights and research.
The great problem, however, is that we do not have the technology to reach those resources yet. In fact, that kind of technology seems to be remotely distant in its realization. So the big question is where do we stand today as the Swedish austronaut Christer Fuglesvang claims that Sweden and Europe should increase their efforts and investment into space. In reality the technologists and their political proponents might have tricked us so far into believing on space exploration as some kind of religion.
So why should it be interpretaded as a religion? The answer to that is simple: We need to believe in the future. That means that we have to expand the horizon of the possible future. With endless resources and an economy and supporting technology there are in fact no limits of growth.
This kind of future image has already been presented: It was called Star Treak and it had a wonderful technological invention; the replicator, which allowed you to wish for whatever you wanted and immediately it was produced. This effectiviely eliminated the scarcity of resources and the need of a monetary economy: in fact a kind of paradise.
The problem we face, however, is that we are far from achieving that kind of technology, interstellar spaceflights and so on, while the functioning of the neoliberal economy are driving us towards what Thomas Malthus named as overpopulation and lack of possibility to feed that population. The dilemma is as easy to grasp as it was in Malthus' days. Later economists has claimed that Malthus was wrong simply because he underestimated the possibilities of techological development and the following increase agricultural production.
In the 1960s an often ridiculed book was published; "Limits to Growth" was its name. Maybe the authors only were wrong because they got the timing wrong. A Japanese scientist did an interesting experiment in the beginning of the 1990s. He made a computer-simulation of the combined effect of ozone depletion and climate change on the 200 most important plants for food production. He estimated the World was risking to loose about one fifth of its agricultural areas and that we were facing decreasing amounts of agricultural produce. The eefects would materialize around the 2025, according to the simulation model.
So the really big question becomes; where do we put our money at the best possible use; i) in space exploration, for religious (economic) reasons; or ii) into dealing with the possibilities to handle crisis triggered by a life-style that is threatening life, as we know it, on this planet. Some scientists claim that the problem today is that we live as if we had around four or five planets, while in fact we are stuck with this one...
So why do economists and technologists exists? Why do we need them?
Today's second pic shows Star Fleet Captain Janeway looking into the replicator while some liquid in a glass is produced. I would guess it is some kind of tea...
Nice! Take economists and their understanding of growth: It can only occur based on two circumstances; either you engage more consumers or you make the existing consumers to consume more. The mere increase in quantity then produce the growth of an economy. Logically speaking that means that in the end we will run out of resources, sooner or later.
In comes a technologist or even worse a technoeconomist, and claims that the resources are endless as we easily can acquire them from space. This is the reason behind why we are supposed to spend billions and billions on space flights and research.
The great problem, however, is that we do not have the technology to reach those resources yet. In fact, that kind of technology seems to be remotely distant in its realization. So the big question is where do we stand today as the Swedish austronaut Christer Fuglesvang claims that Sweden and Europe should increase their efforts and investment into space. In reality the technologists and their political proponents might have tricked us so far into believing on space exploration as some kind of religion.
So why should it be interpretaded as a religion? The answer to that is simple: We need to believe in the future. That means that we have to expand the horizon of the possible future. With endless resources and an economy and supporting technology there are in fact no limits of growth.
This kind of future image has already been presented: It was called Star Treak and it had a wonderful technological invention; the replicator, which allowed you to wish for whatever you wanted and immediately it was produced. This effectiviely eliminated the scarcity of resources and the need of a monetary economy: in fact a kind of paradise.
The problem we face, however, is that we are far from achieving that kind of technology, interstellar spaceflights and so on, while the functioning of the neoliberal economy are driving us towards what Thomas Malthus named as overpopulation and lack of possibility to feed that population. The dilemma is as easy to grasp as it was in Malthus' days. Later economists has claimed that Malthus was wrong simply because he underestimated the possibilities of techological development and the following increase agricultural production.
In the 1960s an often ridiculed book was published; "Limits to Growth" was its name. Maybe the authors only were wrong because they got the timing wrong. A Japanese scientist did an interesting experiment in the beginning of the 1990s. He made a computer-simulation of the combined effect of ozone depletion and climate change on the 200 most important plants for food production. He estimated the World was risking to loose about one fifth of its agricultural areas and that we were facing decreasing amounts of agricultural produce. The eefects would materialize around the 2025, according to the simulation model.
So the really big question becomes; where do we put our money at the best possible use; i) in space exploration, for religious (economic) reasons; or ii) into dealing with the possibilities to handle crisis triggered by a life-style that is threatening life, as we know it, on this planet. Some scientists claim that the problem today is that we live as if we had around four or five planets, while in fact we are stuck with this one...
So why do economists and technologists exists? Why do we need them?
Today's second pic shows Star Fleet Captain Janeway looking into the replicator while some liquid in a glass is produced. I would guess it is some kind of tea...
Inlägg
2 kommentarer:
Fuglesväng... Nu är du väl taskig. I övrigt har du rätt. Fast det brukar vara din fru som har rätt.
Ooops, det var ju inte alls min mening. Sorry Christer...
Skicka en kommentar