[Serious] The Post-Technological World.

[AFTT47]

We have had solar technology, for example, for almost a century. But greed has kept the planet on fossil fuels. 

I'm surprised at you, Brian. That's conspiracy theory nonsense.

Yes, we have had solar technology for quite some time but it has only recently become economically viable. Until recently, it cost more to manufacture a solar voltaic panel than the value of the energy that panel would produce over its entire lifetime. Eschewing a technology that is hopelessly noncompetitive is not greed - it's common sense.

Now that the situation has changed, we are seeing rapid adoption of solar (and wind). Yes, it's because of favorable economics but it's a matter of practicality, not greed. Not to say that greed doesn't exist but it had nothing to do with the lack of adoption of solar before it was viable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Economic viability is greed by another name. Case in point, nearly a billion people don't have enough to eat at any given time...because it's not economically viable to sell them food. Not because they have no money, mind you - or even so much that it would cost more, but because of the lost opportunity to shift stock to those areas where people would pay less.

If I could sell a lb of produce for $1 in location a, or 50c in location b, I have all of my produce sitting for sale at location a, even if it only cost me 5c to make the lb of produce. Most of it won't sell, and it's not feasible (when it's even possible) to shift the stock to the second location in the event that it doesn't sell at the first.

(I'm not commenting on how greed is uniformly bad, I just think it's useful to be upfront about what circumstances we find ourselves in because of it - I think it's a mix, personally. )

[Yonadav]

That's a pretty bullshit way to describe the corruption that goes on with trying to feed starving people in destitute or war torn nations. Yes, the problem is greed. But not in the way that you are describing it. The problem with sending food to these places is the corruption in these places. And sure, a lot of times the bad actors in these places have some sort of partnership worked out with western corporations-- like in the Iraq oil for food fiasco. A lot of people think that you can show up with billions of dollars with of food and other supplies for starving people in Africa, and you're just going to be welcomed in and assisted with distributing the food. But in reality, whenever anyone shows up anywhere with billions of dollars worth of stuff, things get weird.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Corruption is the only problem?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're discussing the troubles with humanitarian aid, which are also very real.  

I was commenting on why food doesn't get to those places as a matter of routine business decisions.  In many cases, they actually grow the shit but can't afford to buy it.  Not because they have no money, but because someone else has more money. Not because it would be sold at a loss with respect to the cost to produce, but a loss with respect to their expected retail elsewhere.

Oddly enough, there's a problem that would go away in our post tech world.

[Yonadav]

You're discussing the troubles with humanitarian aid, which are also very real.  

I was commenting on why food doesn't get to those places as a matter of routine business decisions.  In many cases, they actually grow the shit but can't afford to buy it.  Not because they have no money, but because someone else has more money.  Not because it would be sold at a loss with respect to the cost to produce, but a loss with respect to their expected retail elsewhere.

Oddly enough, there's a problem that would go away in our post tech world.

OK, that's a valid one. The cases that I can think of where people grow food while starving are cases in which foreign corporations own the land, and the only benefit that the indigenous folks get from their productivity is from wages paid for working on the plantations. For example, the banana plantations in Honduras.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

So Brian Aldiss 'Hot House' is the guide every one is looking towards, then?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Never read it.

[Smaug]

I imagine that post-tech world could occur if Humanity reaches a certain 'plateau' in science. Thanks to the advances in science the technology has been growing at a relatively steep rate from the early 1800's. Of course this resulted not only in big benefits but also in major problems such as pollution, global war risk etc. But at least we have hope that science would bring solutions to our current problems. There is another problem though. Scientific knowledge has been getting ever more complicated over the time. Different areas of study are getting more and more specialized yet it's clear that there are many intricate interconnections between them. A day could come when Humanity will no longer be able to sustain current rate of growth both in science and technology. This could result in a situation when qualitative growth halts but quantitative growth persists. If Human race isn't actively colonizing space by then it would become a grave problem. Earth would get over-harvested with no hope for a more light-handed solution, which would gradually result in wars for basic resources etc. This would be accompanied with gradual deterioration of existing high-tech installations which would lead to all kinds of disasters (Bhopal and Chernobyl-style). The result may be a heavily polluted agrarian world where only the privileged use technology more complicated than simple mechanical tools. And the technicians may be considered 'wizards'. Such crisis may as well result in a rise of religiously-backed Luddism.

I wrote all this in an assumption that human nature doesn't change considerably over time.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What's the reason that humanity would not be able to sustain its current level of technology? I imagine that reason would have a lot to do with shaping things.

Resource depletion.

---

I'll be dead when the medicines get scarce.

Same goes for most people.