Comments on: Innovation in the dock http://2020science.org/2009/12/18/jackson/ Providing a clear perspective on developing science and technology responsibly Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:52:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: James Dwight http://2020science.org/2009/12/18/jackson/comment-page-1/#comment-42598 James Dwight Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:38:01 +0000 http://2020science.org/?p=2670#comment-42598 This could well be the death of us all. I call it the K-Mart Syndrome. I have long feared the collapse of communism, not because I am a staunch believer in Marx or Lenin, but because this mismanaged form of government has kept billions of the world's consumers from the limited shelves that we all share. Now China has shown up to ask for their fair share. If it is true that the US has 4% of the world's population and uses somewhere around 20% of the world's resources, what happens when a country that has 30%-40% of the world's population wants what we have? The depletion of our planet is only going to escalate. It would be very easy to blame shot-sighted governments or short-sighted corporations (or in this context short-sighted scientists) for our current and future woes, but as I look around my room and notice all of the stuff it is so easy for me to buy I know who the culprits are. We, as a people, will not stop wanting more. Without unbelievable advancements in technology we will be forced to confront the realities of our human nature in ways that are infinitely more distasteful. My latest novel is set 53 years from now and has the working title of "Comply or Die". I'm sure my publisher and I will come up with a more palatable title before it hits the shelves, but you get the idea. This could well be the death of us all. I call it the K-Mart Syndrome.

I have long feared the collapse of communism, not because I am a staunch believer in Marx or Lenin, but because this mismanaged form of government has kept billions of the world’s consumers from the limited shelves that we all share. Now China has shown up to ask for their fair share. If it is true that the US has 4% of the world’s population and uses somewhere around 20% of the world’s resources, what happens when a country that has 30%-40% of the world’s population wants what we have? The depletion of our planet is only going to escalate.

It would be very easy to blame shot-sighted governments or short-sighted corporations (or in this context short-sighted scientists) for our current and future woes, but as I look around my room and notice all of the stuff it is so easy for me to buy I know who the culprits are. We, as a people, will not stop wanting more. Without unbelievable advancements in technology we will be forced to confront the realities of our human nature in ways that are infinitely more distasteful. My latest novel is set 53 years from now and has the working title of “Comply or Die”. I’m sure my publisher and I will come up with a more palatable title before it hits the shelves, but you get the idea.

]]> By: Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/2009/12/18/jackson/comment-page-1/#comment-41325 Andrew Maynard Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:59:42 +0000 http://2020science.org/?p=2670#comment-41325 I think you're right. We've got into the habit of assuming that market forces are a fundamental law of nature, and that we are completely at their mercy. This worked to a certain extent where society and the world could absorb the consequences of resulting mis-steps. But it seems that more than ever now we need to take control of our destiny rather than just letting things happen - unless we are prepared to accept the consequences of inaction. I think you’re right. We’ve got into the habit of assuming that market forces are a fundamental law of nature, and that we are completely at their mercy. This worked to a certain extent where society and the world could absorb the consequences of resulting mis-steps. But it seems that more than ever now we need to take control of our destiny rather than just letting things happen – unless we are prepared to accept the consequences of inaction.

]]> By: Ruth Seeley http://2020science.org/2009/12/18/jackson/comment-page-1/#comment-41322 Ruth Seeley Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:36:41 +0000 http://2020science.org/?p=2670#comment-41322 The technological glitch led, I think, to saving the best for last. This is precisely the question we have to ask ourselves, no matter how it's phrased (it could have been oranges available all year round vs aisles and aisles full of not-quite-food in the supermarket). Why, if costs continue to decrease, do revenues still <i>have</i> to increase in order for a company to be considered successful? In other words, what, as a species, are our values? The technological glitch led, I think, to saving the best for last. This is precisely the question we have to ask ourselves, no matter how it’s phrased (it could have been oranges available all year round vs aisles and aisles full of not-quite-food in the supermarket).

Why, if costs continue to decrease, do revenues still have to increase in order for a company to be considered successful? In other words, what, as a species, are our values?

]]>