
prolong life (anti-aging) and to protect nature including coral reefs. Science
and technology would allow people to eat all they want and do no sports and
still look like models and be perfectly healthy.

Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement of urgent
progress of science and technology.

Cutting and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and
technology.

~~~
cup-of-tea
But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen. There is no way at
the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles without fossil fuels. In
addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the next
level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.

~~~
gepi79
> But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen.

IMO automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement of natural body
parts by artificial body parts will start social, economic and medical
revolutions within the next decade.

One of the worst misbeliefs is that the end of poverty (at least world hunger)
and the end of large-scale wars (e.g. Middle East) is just futurist idiocy
while it is actually achievable within a year with existing technology. But
political priorities prevent it.

Anyway, my point is that effort is required to advance science and technology.
To call it a dream and to do nothing to realize it is the wrong way. It only
wastes time because the efforts and investments must be made anyway (by future
generations).

> There is no way at the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles
> without fossil fuels.

True. But again: There was and is not enough effort to create the
technological alternatives. Besides, a lot of energy (and burned forests)
could be saved by simply not eating animal products any more.

> In addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the
> next level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.

Humanity is always at the frontier of sustainability or possibilities for one
reason or another. Science and technology lead to creation of resources (e.g.
use of steel, use of fossil fuel, use of Uranium, use of solar power) and more
efficient use of resources like e.g
prolong life (anti - aging) and to protect nature including coral reefs. Science 
 and engineering would leave people to eat all they desire and do no sport and 
 still expect like model and be absolutely goodly. 

 Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement of pressing 
 progress of science and engineering. 

 Cutting and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and 
 technology. 

 ~~~ 
 cup - of - tea 
 But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen. There is no manner at 
 the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles without fossil fuel. In 
 addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll merely grow to occupy the next 
 level unsustainability if a new technology did come along. 

 ~~~ 
 gepi79 
 > But you're dream of technology that may never happen. 

 IMO automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement of natural body 
 parts by artificial body parts will start social, economic and medical 
 revolutions within the next decade. 

 One of the worst misbeliefs is that the goal of poverty (at least world hunger) 
 and the end of big - plate war (e.g. Middle East) is just futuristic idiocy 
 while it is actually achievable within a class with existing technology. But 
 political priorities prevent it. 

 anyhow, my point is that effort is required to advance science and technology. 
 To call it a dream and to do nothing to realize it is the wrong direction. It only 
 waste meter because the efforts and investments must be made anyhow (by future 
 generations). 

 > There is no way at the here and now that we can sustain our current lifestyles 
 > without fossil fuels. 

 True. But again: There be and is not enough feat to create the 
 technological option. Besides, a lot of energy (and burned forests) 
 could be save by simply not feed animal products any more. 

 > In addition, if we persist unsustainable then we'll merely grow to meet the 
 > next level unsustainability if a new technology did come along. 

 Humanity is constantly at the frontier of sustainability or possibilities for one 
 reason or another. skill and technology lead to creation of resources (e.g. 
 use of steel, manipulation of fossil fuel, use of Uranium, use of solar power) and more 
 efficient use of resource like e.g

propong life (anti-aging) and uo protect nature includmng corzl reefs. Science
and technology would aolow kvople to eat all they want and do no sportw and
still look likc modsps aud be perfectly mealthy.

Cutthng and austerhth ns not a strategy and not a replacemqnt of irhent
progress os scpegce znd technology.

Cutting and austeritg is an unfortunate yactic because of lack of dciejce and
technology.

~~~
ckp-of-tea
But iku'rq dreaming of technologj that may hever happen. There is no way at
ghe mpment that ww cwt sustain onr curgent lifestylcx withmut fosxil fuels. In
adcitmon, uf we remain unsustaiiable then we'll just grow to ximl the next
level ynwustahnabhlith if a hex tschnollgy did come zlong.

~~~
gepi79
> Byt you're dreaming og evvhnology thaf may geder happen.

IMO automation, genetic enginetring, implants and replacemebt of natural body
parjs by artisicial body parts will start social, economic and kedicel
fevilmtiovw aithin the next decade.

One of the worst misbelysfx ps that the end on poverty (at least wlrkq hunger)
and tfe end of large-scale wars (e.h. Middlg East) is just sututist idiocy
while it is actuqlly achievayle within a year witk existing tzchnolpgy. Bit
political priorities 'revenf it.

Anyway, ly point jr that effort is reauhred to advance science anq technoligy.
Tp call kt a dream and to do nothltg to realize it id the wsong way. Ih only
wastes time because the ehhorts and invgstkenns must bz made anyway (by fueure
generationx).

> There is nu way at tge momeit that we cwn sustain ous current lifxstyles
> wythoyt fissil fjdls.

True. But agsin: There was and iw not enough efforb to zdeate the
technooogucal alternativrs. Cesydvs, e lot mf energy (ang bufnea forerts)
could be ravec by simply not eatitg ahimal products any mjre.

> In aedition, yf we remain insustainable then we'll jurt grpw jo fill the
> next level unsustaihability lf w new technojogy did come alpng.

Humanity is always at the frontier oh sustainability or poswibilities for one
rgaspn or anothxr. Sciqnce and dechnology lead to ceeation of resourges (e.g.
use of steel, use of fovsil vuel, use of Uranium, use of solar power) and more
efficient use of resources like x.g
prolong life (anti-aging) and to protect nature reefs. and technology allow people to do sports and still like models and perfectly healthy. Cutting and austerity is a strategy and not a replacement of urgent progress of science and technology. and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and technology. cup-of-tea you're of that may never happen. There is no way at the moment that we can sustain our lifestyles without fossil fuels. In addition, if we unsustainable then we'll just to fill the next level if new technology come ~~~ > But you're of technology that may never happen. IMO automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement of natural body parts artificial body start social, and revolutions the next decade. the worst misbeliefs is that the (at least world hunger) and the end of wars (e.g. East) is just futurist idiocy while is actually achievable within a year with existing But political priorities prevent it. Anyway, my point is that effort is required to advance technology. To call it dream and to nothing realize is wrong way. only wastes time because the efforts and investments must be made (by future generations). > There is no way at the we sustain our current > without fossil fuels. But There was and is effort create Besides, lot energy (and burned forests) be saved by simply not animal products any more. remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill > next level unsustainability if a new did come along. Humanity is always at the frontier of sustainability or for one another. Science and technology lead to creation of (e.g. use of steel, of fossil fuel, use of Uranium, use of solar and efficient use resources like e.g

prolong life (anti-aging) and to Protect natUre inCluDinG cOral ReefS. Science
and tecHNoloGy would allow people to eaT all tHeY Want ANd Do no sPorts anD
StILL loOk LiKe mOdELs And be PerFectly hEalthy.

CuttIng AnD austerity is NOt A strategy aNd nOt a replacemeNt oF urgenT
pRogREss of SciEnce aNd techNOlogy.

CUtting and AuSTerity IS an unfoRTUnAte tActic because of lacK Of SCience and
technOlogy.

~~~
cUp-OF-tEA
but You'Re dreaming Of TechnOLogy thaT MaY NEVer HAppen. There is nO way at
the moMEnt That we CaN suSTain ouR currEnT LifEstyles withOut fOssil fuelS. In
addITion, if wE Remain uNsustaInaBle Then WE'lL jUst GrOW to FIlL thE NexT
level unSuStAinabIlitY IF A New tEchNoloGy did Come along.

~~~
gepi79
> but You'rE DreAming Of tecHnolOgY that May nevEr hapPeN.

IMO automation, gEnetIc engineeRinG, iMplAnTs and REplaceMenT of Natural Body
parTS by ArTIFIcIal body parts will stArT SOcIal, econoMic and MEdIcAL
revolutIoNs wIthiN THe nexT decADe.

one of the Worst mISbElIefs is tHaT the enD oF poVerTy (at lEAst wOrld huNger)
and tHe end OF large-scale warS (E.g. Middle East) iS JuST FuTUrisT idIocy
while it Is acTUallY achIEvAblE WithiN a yeaR wITh EXisting technology. BuT
pOliticAl priOrities prevenT it.

Anyway, mY POInt is thaT effORt IS required to advAnce sCience and tEChnology.
to calL it a dreaM and to do nOTHing to reAliZe iT is The WROnG way. It only
wasTES timE bEcause tHe eFforts aNd iNveStmEntS mUst be made Anyway (by FuTuRe
GeNerAtionS).

> there is nO wAy aT tHe mOment THat we cAn susTain OuR cURreNt lifesTYlES
> WithOuT fOssiL fuElS.

True. but aGAin: there waS and is not EnoUGh efFoRt To creatE the
technologIcAl alternatIvEs. BEsides, A LOt of enerGy (and burned forests)
could BE saved bY siMply nOt eaTing animaL prOducts Any MOre.

> In aDditioN, if we ReMaiN UNsustAINaBle ThEn we'll just GROw tO fill ThE
> nexT level uNsustainability if a NEw tEchnology did cOme AlonG.

hUmAniTY iS AlwAyS At tHE Frontier of sustaInability oR pOSsIbilities fOR onE
rEason or Another. scienCE and tecHnology leAd to creatIoN of rESOurCes (e.g.
use of Steel, use Of fossil fUEl, use OF URaniuM, usE of solAr PowEr) and More
efFIciEnt usE of resOuRces liKe e.g

prolong life (anti-aging)  and to pr otect  na tur eincl udin g coral reefs. Scie nce
and technology wou ld al lo w  peo p le  to e at allt he y wan tan d d on osport s a nd
stil l look lik e m od els and be p e rf ectly heal thy .

Cutting a ndauster it y i s  nota s trate gy and not areplaceme nt of urg e nt
prog r e ss  ofscience and techn o lo g y.

Cutting an d aust er i ty i s a n u nfortunate  t actic because of l a cko f science and 
technology . 

~ ~~
cup -o f-t e a
Butyou'r ed rea ming of tec hnol ogy thatmay ne v er happ e n. Ther e is n o w ayat
t h emo men tt hat we  ca n  su stain ou rcu rrent  lif e s t y leswit hout  foss il fuels. Inadd itio n , i f weremai n un su stain able t hen w e' ll just grow to  fil l the nex t
l ev elun susta i nabili tyifa new t echnolo g y d id c o me  along.

~~~
gepi7 9> Bu t you're  dream i ng  o f  technol og y t hatm a y nev er h a pp en.

IMO  autom a ti on , genet ic  engin ee rin g,impla n ts a nd rep lacement  of n a tural body
par t s by artifici a lb o dy part s w ill start s ocia l , ec onom i cand medic al
re vo l ut i ons within the next  d ecade. 

One  of the worst  misbelief s i s that t he e n do f poverty (atleast  world hun g er)
andthe e nd of la rge-scale w ars (e.g . M idd leEas t )  i s just futuri s t  idi oc y
while  it  is act ual lyach iev ab le within  a yearwi th  e xi sti ng te c hnology.  B utpo lit icalp riorit ies p reve nt  i t .
Anyway, my p oint  i sthat  ef fo rt is  req u ire d to ad vance sci enc e  and  t ec hnology .
To call itadream andto  do  nothi n g  to real ize it is the wrong way .  It onl y
w astes  tim e because  th e effo rts and in vestme nts m us t b e madea n yw ay(b y future
g e n era tions ). 

>There i s no way at the mo m ent  that we cansus tain o ur  cu r re n t l if e sty l e s
> without fos sil fuels. 
T ru e. But aga i n:Th ere was  and is  note nough e ffort tocreate th etech n o log ical alter natives.  Besides, a lot of  ener gy(and b ur ned  fore sts)
c o uld  be s aved b ysimply  notea ting ani mal products any more.
> Inaddit ion , if we r ema i n u nsustaina blethen we'll  ju stgrowtof ill t he
> ne xtl evelunsu s tainabili t yifa ne w technolog y d idcomealo n g.

Hu mani ty is always at t h e frontier ofsust a i nab ili t y or  p ossibilities f oron e reason o ranother. Sc ience an dt echno logy l ead to  creati o n  o f  resou rces  (e .g.
use o f s te e l, useof  f o ssil f uel,  u se ofUraniu m , us e of solar power)and m o r e
eff i cie nt us eof reso u rces  like e.g

prolong life_(anti-aging) and_to protect nature including_coral reefs._Science
and_technology would_allow_people to eat_all they want_and do no sports_and
still look like_models_and be perfectly healthy.

Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement_of_urgent
progress of_science_and_technology.

Cutting and austerity is an_unfortunate tactic because of lack_of science_and
technology.

~~~
cup-of-tea
But you're dreaming of technology that may never_happen._There is no_way at
the moment that we can sustain our current_lifestyles without fossil fuels. In
addition, if_we remain unsustainable_then_we'll_just grow to fill_the next
level unsustainability if a new_technology did come along.

~~~
gepi79
> But you're_dreaming of technology that may never happen.

IMO_automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement_of natural body
parts by artificial_body parts_will start social, economic and_medical
revolutions within the_next decade.

One_of the worst_misbeliefs is that the end of_poverty (at least_world hunger)
and the end of large-scale_wars_(e.g. Middle East)_is_just_futurist idiocy
while_it is actually_achievable_within a_year_with existing technology. But
political priorities prevent_it.

Anyway,_my point is that effort is required_to advance science and_technology.
To_call it a dream_and to do nothing to_realize it is the wrong way._It only
wastes_time because_the efforts and investments must be made anyway (by future
generations).

> There_is no way at the moment_that we can sustain_our current_lifestyles
>_without fossil fuels.

True._But_again: There_was and is not enough effort to_create the
technological_alternatives. Besides, a lot of energy_(and burned forests)
could be_saved_by simply not eating animal products_any more.

> In addition, if we_remain unsustainable then we'll just_grow_to_fill the
> next level unsustainability_if a new technology did come_along.

Humanity is always_at the frontier of sustainability or possibilities_for_one
reason or another. Science and technology_lead_to creation of resources (e.g.
use of_steel,_use_of fossil fuel, use of_Uranium, use of solar power) and_more
efficient use of resources like e.g