Message-ID: <33037106.3A4B@mind.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:52:38 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net> Subject: Re: Psuedoscience vs Creativity To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
mailto:EUNSteve@aol.com wrote:Steve, I really think that we should take this discussion back to our theory list out of respect for those devel-l members not interested in this discussion--unless those who are interested start speaking up so we know the majority wants to participate. Otherwise, those of you interested in joining our theory list can e-mail me privately, and I can add you to the list.
>
> Are you willing to answer a specific question without returning to the
> themes of technology as savior and capitalism as Antichrist and those who
> disagree with you as corrupt mercenaries?
Sure. >
> Here is the question:
>
> Could we develop in a reasonable amount of time a powdered nutrient that
> might provide 1500 calories a day, balanced for vitamins and the rest,
> sufficient to maintain body weight and health for an adult of 150 punds
> bodyweight, and manufacture that substance so that it would cost no more than
> 12 ents U.S. per day per person?
>
> Could we do so without degrading the environment?
>
> If we could do so, would you favor a research program instituted immediately
> to create such a substance?
>
> If we could create such a substance might we with its use avert the tragedy
> of world hunger that is forecast by Ehrlich and The Club of Rome and the
> Cornell entomologist who uses their computer models?
>
> Is it possible for you to answer such a simple question without referring to
> my motives, to my alliances with global capitlaism, to the myth of
> technology?
Ok Steve, we'll try the rational discussion thing one more time, but so far the end result has always been an exchange of insults. Will you uphold your end of the "cease-fire?" so that we can accomplish something?
In reference to the above, yes, I think such a contribution would have a positive impact *but only if* the development of such a foodstuff was not used to justify the end of population control measures. While we may be able to feed 15 billion people, we will still have to find them water, shelter, etc. I don't know about you, but the world as depicted in the movie "Soylant Green" (which is strikingly similar to your proposal) is not appealing to me, particularly when it can be avoided! I do not want to live in a sterile, concrete world where the only images of the natural world are on a videotape they play for me as i lay dying. I know you will say that this is only a hollywood rendition of what the future could look like, and this is true. But how many billion people will we have before our world *is* like that? 25 billion? 35 billion? What is wrong with limits to at least preserve the quality of life we have now, if not improve it by cleaning it up a little.
BD