I agree with this, but it requires that all the available technologies are deployed in necessary amounts.
There is no room to squiggle around for the big monetary profits to carry out first.
Posted by Intomorrow on 11/06 at 04:22 AM
Exactly, so we need right action as well as right speech: v. difficult, as it requires us to be practically bodhisattvas in a grossly materialist world; a retarded child on my block used to say to everyone: “shockingly unpurified”—from the mouths of babes. Both Joern and melis’ comments on the mark; transhumanism has done well for the two or so decades it has been publicised- now we need a futurism to match. Political gridlock is the big disappointment, IMO (makes me ashamed to tell strangers I’m a futurist). We want to discuss transhumanism, space-interest with a public which doesn’t even know how their TVs work? We want to discuss existential threats yet the majority of the public thinks the Earth is a self-healing organism protected by a deity or deities? Plus the enormous hypocrisy concerning government:
“Growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential — but in any given year, it was on the whole over 8 percent higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat. . . . The Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush administrations presided over especially lavish expansions of the entitlement state.”
Posted by YR on 11/06 at 05:36 AM
Eco-fiction as a genre: http://globalsociology.com/2012/10/23/eco-fiction-rising/