Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 6
The New World Reader
An Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition
May 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 6
This month's quote: "Mellontolatry, or the worship of the future, is a fuddled
religion." --C. S. Lewis
Contents-
From the Editor: On the Possibility of World Government
Communications
Feature Article: "The Final Frontier" by Randal Duff
Political Futures: Government by Pledge
___________
From the Editor: Are we ready for World Government?
It is difficult to go very long without hearing something about the "global
community." Those of us on the Internet can experience the global community just
by frequenting the newsgroup of our choice. There we can find conversations,
arguments, flame-wars, going on between people from all across the world.
Everyone with a TCP/IP connection has achieved "equality" regardless of race,
religion, gender, or color. When we talk about community though, we are
discussing the relationship between individuals and a group of other individuals
who can be communicated with either collectively or singly. So the global
community on the Internet is a community of people. What of a community of
nations? Can there be such a thing?
The world can be divided (but perhaps not very well) into two kinds of states: those
striving to be members of a global community and those states who desire to remain
autonomous in order to protect their cultural heritage--language, ethnicity,
customs. The first sort wish to establish an economic community, an environment
in which trade and business can flourish. These kinds of nations value their
standard of living more than their culture. When the trade routes open to other
nations the import and export of culture is inevitable--just look at the
westernization of countries like Japan, while middle eastern countries try like mad
to keep this sort of "corruption" from entering their society.
John Lukacs, in his History of the Twentieth Century, say that the twentieth
century's defining characteristic is nationalism. I am certain that there are plenty of
historians which would like to argue with Lukacs. But if Lukacs is not too far off the
mark might there not be a shift toward globalism in the twenty-first century? Might
not nationalism give way to globalism--a sense that all people are equal and we all
live on this same small global spinning around the sun and that fact somehow
unites us all. Environmental awareness leads to a simplistic form of globalism.
Would globalism ultimately lead states to renounce their sovereignty to a larger
political organism? Does globalism lead naturally to World Government?
A community of nations may not be a practical possibility. Associations, treaties,
agreements, can be made between nations, but true community lies just outside the
capacity of nations. Inherent in community is a "feeling" of unity or connectedness.
Communities like families are bound together by the mutual love of individuals. A
nation is a collection of individuals and lacks the collective capacity for feelings such
as love. So a group of nations can enter into a relationship, but their ties would not
be strengthened by the bounds of love and as such can enter into true community.
A truly global community relies on the relationships of individuals not the nations
which act for the individuals in matters of state. So, I would say that, no, globalism
does not necessarily lead to World Government. Nations act in the best interest of
nations not of individuals. Thus it would be highly unlikely that a World
Government could be established which would naturally aim at first providing
individuals with the best quality of life; rather nations will come together provide
the best conditions for nations to prosper. This indirectly leads an improvement of
the quality of the lives of some individuals, but makes not assurances of a universal
provision of good quality of life.
Part of looking to the future, is imagining what form our government will take as
peoples attitudes and perceptions change. So to provide a form for this sort of
future gazing we are going to provide a section in NWR for you to tell us what you
think politics will be or should be like. Two years ago when we were developing the
concept for NWR, current events and politics were to be a main component of this
little publication. Now, Ed Blakely is joining our staff as the Politics Editor, he will
be taking over this new section: Political Futures. He is asking for you to send in
your suggestions on how you would change the government here in the US or in
some other country, in addition to your ideas on what will happen to politics in the
twenty-first century.
To warn you--next month's issue of NWR will be on the topic of television. Jack
Lang's got an essay in the works on the effect television has had on the human
condition. If you have any thoughts on the subject of television, even if its only a
few words, let us hear them.
Just to remind you, NWR has a World Wide Web page now. If you would like to
check it out it is at "http://goodrich.phys.lsu.edu/nwr/nwr_index.html".
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
\\\Send your comments to NWR at NEWORLDR@aol.com.///
__________
The Final Frontier
By RANDAL DUFF
The first era of space exploration ended because we had no compelling reason to
maintain a human presence in space. National pride and the Cold War propelled
the space age of the sixties and seventies. Once the United States established
dominance in space, the public perceived that the space program had lost its raison
d'etre. Of course, scientists know what to do with a space program--study the
universe. Pragmatic reasons for doing such studies are not necessary for scientists
who view investigation and exploration as an end in itself. However, some
pragmatism is necessary to justify the expense of billions of dollars on a space
program to a public called upon for its financial support. What will the taxpayers
get for their investment? If scientists are to establish a program which seeks to
maintain the active presence of humans in space, they must come up with valid
reasons for implementing it.
Olaf Stapleton, a philosopher and author, stated in 1948 three motives for
maintaining a human presence in space: to exploit available physical resources, to
increase human control over the environment, and to make the "most" or "best" of
humans. In addition to Stapleton's motives, others are: to escape overpopulation
and pollution of Earth, to create genetically controlled environments to eradicate
disease and defect without instituting a eugenics program at home, and to escape
mutually assured destruction. Undoubtably, other reasons could be put forward;
however, let us focus (for the moment) on the exploitation of natural resources
available on moons, asteroids, and other planets.
The sort of space program our country needs is not one that just blasts shuttles off
into Earth orbit every two weeks, but one which has as its main goal placing people
in space for long term habitation of orbiting stations, moon bases, and Mars
colonies. We must do these things because our technology is based on the
consumption of natural resources for its sustenance. The Earth does not hold an
unlimited supply of resources, thus eventually all Earth's available resources will be
consumed. To continue our technological growth and development we must
venture to nearby moons, asteroids, and planets to harvest these requisite resources.
Should such a space program be a public or private venture? If the fate of our
standard of life is at stake, should not the public financially support this program?
One of the arguments that Columbus made to the queen of Spain to encourage her
to support his voyage west was that he would open up new trade routes to India and
China. He made an economic argument. Financing exploration yields economic
profit for nations. Large undertakings (such as exploration) have often been
supported by the public. Once an economic benefit has been established then private
businesses get involved in the exploitation of fruits of exploration. Considering the
present cost of space exploration, it is doubtful that an appeal to economic
advantages alone will launch us into a new space age. What would be a convincing
argument? To avoid the possible extinction of the human race perhaps?
Is the universe ripe for the picking? The word "exploitation" makes us cringe; it
conjures of images of oppressors taking advantage of the weak. We Americans do
not want to be associated with any form of exploitation. This attitude denies the
obvious fact that we owe our quality of life (which is technologically based) to the
exploitation of the Earth's natural resources (not to mention foreign labor).
Whether we like such exploitation or not, who is willing to give up their cars or
electricity? Both of these technological luxuries are afforded at the cost of
exhausting an irreplaceable supply of fossil fuel.
The most pressing problem of exploiting Earth's resources is pollution.
Technology's polluting by-products could be serious enough to render the Earth
uninhabitable. If for no other reason, we must shift our exploitation of resources
from the Earth to the Moon, to near-Earth asteroids and even to other planets to
avoid the destruction of our own world.
Our current technological program demands exploitation of Earth's limited natural
resources which eventually will lead to the migration of humankind to space to
look for additional raw materials. An alternative to leaving Earth in search of off-
world resources is to shift the present technological paradigm, to a make use of
renewable resources and non polluting energy sources. However, a complete shift
to renewable resources is not possible overnight; such a shift will require many
years. A combination of shifting to more environmentally benign technologies and
exploiting off-world resources will be necessary to carry us through the next century.
The consumption of raw materials for the production of technological comforts
built our modern society. Our standard of living entails the depletion of the Earth's
natural resources. Consumerism, the destructive consumption of available
resources (the "use it then junk it" mind set), dominates the present paradigm of
material life. Might it not be possible to mend this attitude? The realization that
the Earth has limited resources (we will most assuredly run out of fossil fuel
someday) has encouraged some people to investigate the possibility of a shift to
renewable resources and alternate energy sources. The most emotive reason for this
shift is that renewable resources are, in general, clean. The by-products of
consuming fossil fuel are causing global changes in the climate and degrading the
quality of the atmosphere. The threat to our ecological system is real; to avoid its
irreparable damage we must forgo consumerism.
The largest problem with switching to renewable resources is that the technology
remains in its infancy. Shifting suddenly to this type of technology is not feasible
because it is inefficient and costly. A natural, deliberate introduction of technology
that relies on renewable resources must be encouraged to preserve Earth's
environment. Basic research supplemented with intensive development must be
encouraged. The dominant image of science being the tamer and conqueror of
nature must change. Nature might be able to be rationally ordered on the small
scale, but our science is far from being sophisticated enough to successfully order the
global environment. Until we have the knowledge to successfully micromanage
our biosphere, we must work with the Earth rather than casually raping her for her
resources without a thought for the future of humankind. The diminishing of the
ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are the early warning signs that the Earth is
experiencing the weight of the human technological presence. Our race will be the
loser if we tip the balance of nature.
Ultimately, it may be impossible to shift to an ecologically benign technology
because of the rapid growth of the Earth's human population. Consumption of
unrenewable resources may be unavoidable since cultivation of renewable resources
might prove impossible for the ten billion people expected to inhabit the Earth by
the middle of next century. The servicing of such a large population will place
considerable demands on our technological growth. We will be forced to come up
with ways of housing and feeding people, rather than put a substantial amount of
money into developing ways to improve our quality of life. If this is the case, we
would be better off to make an investment now in providing for the raw materials
needed to sustain ten billion people by gaining a foot hold in space.
The best reason to step out into space is the third on Olaf Stapleton's list: to make
the "most" or "best" of humans. Our innate rational faculties have endowed us
with an insatiable curiosity for the world in which we live. This rationality has
given us also the power to see that dominance is not always the safe means to
ensure one's survival.
Even if we did instigate an active program to develop the resources of near-Earth
space, this does not alleviate our responsibility to develop renewable resource
technologies to reduce the negative effects of consumerism on the delicate ecological
balance of Earth, our island home. The universe holds vast resources; however, the
Earth's resources are limited. To sustain human life at its present pace of
development requires a permanent human presence in space to obtain the resources
we require for modern technological life.
__________
Political Futures: Government by Pledge
by Ed Blakely
The near convergence of National Public Radio's pledge week and income tax
season got me thinking about a way we could change the way government is run.
Where I live the local public radio station sets aside two weeks the year to bug its
listeners for money. The staff at the station will beg and plead for the listeners to
call in and pledge their support--a euphemism for money. Well, since I'm an NPR
news junky, the threat, that if I didn't pledge my support, then my local station
wouldn't be able to carry Morning Edition or All Things Considered anymore, got
my attention. I dialed up and told them to expect a sizable chunk of my student
loan check. They thanked me and sent me a Morning Edition T-Shirt. Something
else arrived in the mail from my public radio station: a listener survey. I was asked
(as a pledging member of the station) to make my programming selections. This is
what gave me my idea.
On my desk was my income tax form (which I hadn't filled out yet; I am a terrible
procrastinator). I looked at the public radio survey and then back at my 1040 EZ.
What if, I thought, I could tell the federal government what programs were my
favorite. And what if the government was somehow obliged to use my tax money
to pay for the programs I marked off on my list. Let's say that I don't like MediCare
and wanted my "pledge" to the government to be spent on scholarships for
students, then I could check off Federal Student Aid and leave MediCare blank.
This would solve a yearly problem, deciding the federal budget. It doesn't seem that
anyone wants to take responsibility for balancing the budget, because balancing the
darn thing means cutting entitlements. But if the government said the taxpayer,
"Here, you decide what will be done with all the tax money." Then when the tax
returns arrived the Congress or the President could say to the special interest groups,
"Hey, don't blame us for the decrease support of (insert name of federal entitlement
program here), it was the tax payer who didn't pledge." The budget would have to
be balanced because only money sent to them could be allocated to the chosen
programs. Any short falls in the income for any particular program would simply
mean a downsizing of that program.
Send in your comments about how you would change the government to make it
better or your views of how government will have to change to address the issues of
the future. Just put "Political Futures" in the subject line of your message and
Trevor will forward it on to me. See you next month!
__________
Have you noticed...?
[We have selected some journal articles for those of you interested in
interpretations of quantum theory. --TA]
-----Foundations of physics-----
JAN 01 1995 v 25 n 1
Eberhard, Philippe H.; Rosselet, Philippe. "Bell's Theorem Based on a Generalized
EPR Criterion of Reality." p. 91
Redhead, Michael. "More Ado about Nothing." p. 123
Paty, Michel. "The Nature of Einstein's Objections to the Copenhagen Interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics." p. 183
MAR 01 1995 v 25 n 3
Chiatti, Leonardo. "Path Integral and Transactional Interpretation." p. 481
APR 01 1995 v 25 n 4
Omnes, Roland. "A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and its
Consequences." p. 605
-----Physical Review Letters-----
APR 03 1995 v 74 n 14
Popescu, Sandu. "Bell's Inequalities and Density Matrices: Revealing "Hidden"
Nonlocality." p. 2619
APR 24 1995 v 74 n 17
Hall, Michael J. W. "Information Exclusion Principle for Complementary
Observables." p. 3307
-----Physics Letters A-----
APR 10 1995 v 200 n 1
Santos, E. "Constraints for the violation of the Bell inequality in Einstein-Podolsky-
Rosen-Bohm experiments." p. 1
APR 24 1995 v 200 n 3 / 4
Khrennikov, A. "p-adic probability interpretation of Bell's inequality" p. 219
__________
NEXT ISSUE: The Future of Television
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to SubNWR@AOL.COM
requesting to be put on the mailing list. Also current and back issues of NWR are
available via FTP at FTP.ETEXT.ORG in the directory
/pub/Zines/NewWorldReader. NWR can be read on the World Wide Web at
http://goodrich.phys.lsu.edu/nwr/nwr_index.html.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays and
Scientific Currents should be 1000 words or less; book and journal reviews and
letters 500. Short stories up to 5000 words in length will be considered.
Donavan Hall, Publisher
Danford Hall, Senior Editor
Trevor Austin, Editor
Jack Lang, Managing Editor
Adam Fisher, Religion Editor
Ed Blakely, Politics Editor
David Branson, Copy Editor
Red Drake, Subscription Coordinator
Denise Hall, Editorial Assistant
copyright, 1995 FMI Publishing
