June 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm #17611
In the arena of very big picture, I have been wondering why we believe in straight line projections of the world’s past behavior. We are certainly familiar with the statistics of population and its distribution on the world’s land mass over the centuries. We have a clear understanding in the nature of “going over the next hill” to accomplish that which cannot be accomplished where one currently resides. What is not clear to me is why our culture continues to believe in the indefinite extensibility of this behavior into the future? There are clearly no more hills to go over. Every square inch of the earth’s surface has the equivalent of a property deed stored somewhere. We are clearly now at the point of working with what we have.
Second observation. We are familiar with the nature of moving from an agrarian to an industrial society, and we are now mostly familiar with the movement to information technology. These movements result in considerably less human effort required on a per task basis, freeing up the time to pursue other activities. What I am wondering is why people believe there will be ever more employment for our exponentially increasing population when, by definition, we require fewer and fewer to perform the same tasks? Technology will continue to obsolete the various tasks many people perform. The standard answer is that all they need is to become more educated and evolve into the higher complexity tasks. Well, technology happens to be my background, and I guarantee you that Intel does not need hundreds of thousands of engineers to develop an indefinitely large product portfolio. Quite a bit fewer than that. Add it all up – exponential increase in population and a decreasing need for body count across the entire system of known tasks. Sounds like structural unemployment as an unending downward trend. We can’t all sell each other hamburgers and yard maintenance. That’s a ponzi. Where’s this going?
If we accept the apparent world state view of social democracy, that all people must be cared for, there is going to be ever fewer of us paying for ever more care. Not trying to start a war here, btw. Just math.June 30, 2012 at 1:03 am #27249
No more hills? What about the rest of the universe?
No more jobs? All it takes to create jobs is freedom and imagination.
Malthus thought it was all about the math too.June 30, 2012 at 5:40 pm #27250
Bill’s Analysis and Conclusions in ‘The World Slows Down’ are entirely correct. The GDP Decline Chart is but one of several items of evidence which support his position.
But there is another crucial point which supports his thesis, which he does not make explicity, but which is,
perhaps, implicit in his thesis, and it relates to Growth.
Growth potential in some areas (e.g. knowledge,) is admittedly unlimited.
However, Growth Potential in other Areas, specifically in the area of certain key material things is quite limited.
Food producing farmland, for example, is quite limited, worldwide, and inputs of energy and fertilizer will only
go so far in increasing production. And with the world’s population increasing at 80 Million per year this
limitation is a real challenge. (And hydroponic ‘food’ is no answer–just taste it!)
Limits to agricultural productive capacity is just one example of the controlling reality which is slowing
World GDP–that reality is called ‘Carrying Capacity’– the number of individuals (of any species) which can
be supported SUSTAINABLY on any resource base. Already we are overshooting our carrying capacity beyond
its optimal level and approaching its limit (Persumably no one will argue that the earth is not finite).
Thus the rate of increase of World GDP is and will continue to decline. Throughput of “things” through
the ecological/resource system has limits
For additional information regarding carrying capacity challenges and solutions visit the websites of two
nonprofits devoted to these issues; http://www.carryingcapacity.org (for conservatives) and http://www.balance.org
(for liberals)……July 12, 2012 at 8:31 pm #17965
JAMES K V.Participant
Bill’s analysis is majesterial. He prompted this response, which I drafted 03 July, and “sat on” till today.
Over the past decade or so I have read a fair amount of Paul Krugman’s work. Krugman is a puzzle, a living paradox. He calls the reader’s attention to the growth-inducing effect of “input growth amplifiers” – in other words, how the introduction of new technologies (fire, agriculture, steam, electricity) results in accelerated growth.
In Pop Internationalism (pp. 167-174) Krugman called attention to what happens in the absence of economic growth amplifiers. Elsewhere he acknowledged the effects of diminishing returns and the growth-braking effect of debt-induced friction.
ECONOMIC OUTPUT GROWTH AMPLIFIERS – The rapid growth in output (by the communist economies), Krugman wrote, could be fully explained by rapid growth in inputs: expansion of employment, increases in education levels, and . . . massive investment in physical capital. No mystery there.
Now consider what happens when something – a new input – makes possible a miraculous increase in output. Consider for example the amplification of productivity in the warehousing industry made possible by hydraulic power. Where would warehousing and material handling be without hydraulic lift technology?
The innovation (hydraulic power, for instance) is based on the simple fact that liquids are essentially non-compressible. Like the wing and the propeller, hydraulic power was brought into the marketplace because somebody saw what was seemingly hidden in plain sight.
PARKINSON’S LAW – The British naval historian C. Northcote Parkinson stated that expenditures always expand to match the funds made available. When that happens, the tendency is to spend on whatever is already available rather than looking for ways to further amplify the outputs obtained from existing inputs. This is what happens in a credit-driven economy where money is created out of thin air.
Government grows. Government corners an ever-larger slice of the economic pie. Government spending exceeds revenues, first a little, then a little more, finally a lot more. The government prints more money, reducing the value of the currency. Saving (for any reason) is punished. Innovators tend to be savers, in order to continue innovating.
“Garage-scale” innovators and innovative startups are handicapped when their monies lose value.
I hold U.S. and Canadian patents for satellite antenna design. My design and my methodology were integrated. This integration enabled me to almost immediately start production of antennas ranging from 3.7 to 7.7 meters aperture . . . at an upfront tooling cost of under $1,000 dollars – in 1979-1990.
Tooling-up costs for the “Big Three” dish builders typically cost over $1 million per each new design.
In 1982 I partnered up with a chap in Edmonton, AB to manufacture my patented designs for cable television systems across the western provinces. Almost immediately the biggest cable systems builder in Western Canada dropped the Canada’s main supplier of antennas to cable and broadcast users and switched to us. When word got out about the performance of our antennas, we got shot down by a spate of rumors – that I had died, that I left and was surfing in San Diego, etc.
Canada’s “main supplier” had their manufacturing facility “down east” in a Toronto suburb. This was in fact part of the company’s global operation. “Their way” of making precision microwave and satellite dishes was very, very capital-intensive. Clearly, mine was not.
My way was disruptive.
Large corporations – especially those like Canada’s “main dish supplier” that depend heavily on government business – may actually benefit as the money supply is expanded. Not only is money then spent on what is already available, corporations limit competition by setting standards, called “specifications”. Specifications have a real upside that should be evident to anyone. The downside is that innovative competition is stuck in the outside lane.
In other words . . .
When there is disruption to an established ‘law of economics’, those who have enjoyed the fruits of the existing system always react to squash ‘the new system’. Competition may be historically based upon innovation – it was the theme of a certain President Teddy Roosevelt – “the business of America is business.”
But one should never expect existing market rulers to roll over and play dead simply because someone has outsmarted them.
SCIENCE FOR THE ELITES / SCIENCE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION – In July, 2006 at the Lightyear Communications annual sales convention held in Louisville, I witnessed a split screen video demonstration of a 2-way VoIP conversation between a U.S. soldier in Iraq and another soldier in Washington. The purpose of this video was to show how well Lightyear VoIP communication works via satellite.
What immediately puzzled me was the apparent absence of the usual delay that occurs during satellite telephone conversations. In this instance (Bagdad, at roughly 50degs E. to/from Washington, at about 77degs W.) two geosynch satellites were needed – in other words, a double-up/double-downjourney, extending a total path length of about 92,000 miles. In other words, a one-way time-span of very nearly half a light-second.
That’s when the narrator obviously leaked something: “This conversation used a special Air Force satellite.
“You might’ve noticed there was no audible delay.
“Actually there was a delay – 700 nanoseconds.”
There were well over a thousand in attendance as the sergeant major spoke. Apparently no one else there realized this was – if true – a clear violation General Relativity. In fact, EM radiation including light travels through a vacuum at 186,272 miles per second. Conveniently that is also 300,000 Km/Sec.
How far does light travel in 700 nanoseconds? 209 meters (231 yards), the Relativity Police tell us. An excellent read on the subject of superluminal transmission and antigravity propulsion is Paul A. LaViolette’s oft-cited reference work: “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion”. LaViolette provides source documentation from the T. Townsend Brown Foundation (pp. 1-26) as well as the early work of Nikola Tesla. With the assistance of others, LaViolette has a good go at backward engineering the propulsion capabilities of the B-2 bomber (pp.142-164). He goes forward from there in discussing findings and correspondence from Eugene Podkletnov (p.172).
The general principles of antigravity propulsion became apparent (pp. 42-65) with Brown’s then-ongoing lab work and demonstrations with flying discs. When powered, the (tethered) discs flew not by expelling mass as a rocket would, but by being drawn forward in carrot-and-stick fashion. By surrounding itself within an etheric reference frame or field, such a vehicle, Brown and others reasoned, could make violent maneuvers while its occupants would not feel any unusual effects.
By 1956, the emerging understanding of gravity came to this: The positive (attractive) charge of the proton very slightly exceeds the negative (repulsive) charge of the electron. Gravity apparently occurs because the atom has a net positive charge. (That also would explain the apparent absence of accumulations of antimatter.) And in 1956 or 1957 all the major players in early antigravitics research mutually decided the time had come to “go black”. Brown unfortunately became an outsider, very possibly because he had upset top military brass with a public demonstration of his work.
As subsequent investigation by Podkletnov showed, when gravity waves are transmitted in a cohered beam, they are moving as etheric pulses at superluminal velocities. Within the reference frame of each pulse, the “Relativity” speed limit of 300,000 km/sec would apply; but the speed with which the etheric pulse itself travels depends on the coherence of the beam.
The “special USAF satellite” transmissions (that we witnessed in the “Lightyear” video) would have had a velocity of c700,000 . . . seven hundred thousand times the normal speed of light. A complete ground-to-satellite-to- ground communications infrastructure is required. Very likely this system is based on . . .
PHASE CONJUGATION – AS DISRUPTIVE A NEW TECHNOLOGY AS THE WHEEL. LaViolette becomes a challenging “read” here, not by any fault of his own but because this technology is counterintuitive. In fact, this reference work by LaViolette is one of the most-referenced works on the subject of phase conjugation. Google the term; there’s a lot of information out there, some worthwhile, some not. But it doesn’t require a huge leap of imagination to see that a “probe beam” could be transmitted over interplanetary (or interstellar) distances for extreme remote sensing of resource-rich targets.
Phase conjugate technologies are likely going to be the most disruptive technology since mankind became . . . mankind. As evidenced by Nikola Tesla and T. Townsend Brown, this technology – like hydraulics or any number of other technologies – is eminently engineerable. As with atomic fission and thermonuclear fusion technologies, there is the potential for weaponry; in fact phase conjugate technology was the basis for the SDI initiative of the Reagan years. And the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl was – according to Thomas Bearden, Professor Emeritus (Electrical Engineering) at MIT – due to an early Soviet experimental phase conjugate mirror device that backfired from a distance of 50 km, in the direction of Chernobyl.
Given what little information about phase conjugate and other “etheric” technologies has escaped into the public domain, we should wonder what all increasingly centralized governments – not just Washington – have planned for “the rest of us”.
THE PARADOX OF CREDIT-BASED ECONOMICS
No technology should be the exclusive domain of the trilogy of Corporate America, academia, and Washington. Rampant credit creation emasculates Mr. Market, thereby exacerbating and maintaining government/corporate hegemony over the most potentially disruptive technology ever. And in so doing, avenues to higher “sustainability thresholds” for mankind are kept off the table. Buckminster Fuller coined the phrase “process of ephemeralization” – doing more with less.
That’s what makes disruptive technologies . . . disruptive. The paradox of credit-based economics is that power to manage the marketplace is progressively concentrated in the hands of an elite few, who, like the generals who ran Nigeria into insolvency are uncomfortable with the “chaos of the marketplace”.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.