Also, russian historicans are not all they are cranked up to be, especially from the soviet era. No offense, but everyone born before 1990 in russia must at least be scrutenized to ensure he/she has freed themselves from indoctrination.
Medvedev's family was hardly hit in Stalin time and more they had to immigrate to Great Britain in 70s thus books by Medvedevs( two brothers - but the book on Jews is written by one of them) at least could be considered relatively free;)
as of indoctrination.
the situation was that at the last years of communist regime here in 80s the most of the ideology indoctrinated itself - it just did not work in practice and all see that. That is why absolute liberal theories were accepted in early 90s. Note that Gaidar was not social democrat - no he was extreme liberal.
But Ok. there is always chance that someone is indoctrinated. There are solutions - and I think the best is to adhere to old good presumption of innocence. And prove that one is indoctrinated ( unless he by himself declare him as communist).
I think that it is not so difficult to spot someone's ideological inclinations.
But again - there are reasons to believe to Medvedev writings ( he is really less possibly indoctrinated than others) and in his book he writes what I told you - there were crimes against different people but there were no Stalin idea to exterminate Jews. And I think that reading Medvedev arguments will help you to understand the
situation that time better, other than adhere to common ( and wrong and somewhat is fascist-like (prejudice) belief I'd add) belief - all Russians born before 90 are indoctrinated:) most are not ( the statistical analysis of votes reveals that most of people under 40 do not vote for communists here. And among older people those having higher education vote much less frequently for communists as well than those less educated old men.
Last voting revealed 15 % of support for communists ( taking into account that communist votes are among most active and all of them vote we could say that there are less than 10 % of population here which are to some degree have old ideology in heart.
Thinking modern plants are proof agains accidents is STUPID
with any current plants there are documents on possible problems ( they are known at least - there are no unexpected (in theory )problems).
To most of them there are solutions.
Still there are technical details on what could fail. But any failures are now thousands times less possible than at Chernobyl.
But it is REALLY possible to develop designs of future nuclear fission plants which have no danger
of radioactive wasting of environment even if plant would be specifically destroyed. Such as special passive ways to stop reactors ( not as currently using rods - but stopping the reactor without any rods just in case of any anomaly, not using liquids in process ( so that no spills) etc.
It is all is possible and this is not case for stupidity but the case of possible technical solutions and outcomes. It is not like belief in myth. It is a matter of technical choice.
If there is will - then in near future it is possible to build problem free nuclear fission plans.
But of cause if citizens will declare everything to be stupied then new plans will never be developed and constructed.
as of all current nuclear fision plants - yes still each of them has some problems ( but not such that they could lead to anything similar in Chernobyl - that case tought ALL a lot, just do not take engineers for stupieds. Taking them for specialists would be a wiser step.
The lessons from Chernobyl are already taken. All new reactors have times more protection.
as of future and using unreached uranium ( as reserves of uranium 235 which is currently used in nuclear fission stations will come to end within 40-100 years ) there are already suggested designs which COULD not explode at any imaginable circumstances as there will not be ANY fluids in process. and also even if all automatics will fail the reactor will stop gracefully by itself.
but the link just to show that there are official documents on the current trends and future ideas.
Which deal with any problems one could figure out from Chernobyl case and deal with full spectrum of related problems ( radioactive waste etc).
So. Using Chernobyl as an argument now when the reasons of the Chernobyl tragedy ( those technical problems etc) are now not applicable to fission stations as no such constructions and technical solutions are used (- there were a lot done to avoid any similar to Chernobyl occurrences by changing design and after performed changes such tragedies could not happen ), and it is not possible to find similarities in that tragedy to technical solutions for future of nuclear fission.
I think that Chernobyl example is just historical example of nuclear industry problems - but the example which has little or no relation to current ( and even less to future) nuclear industry.
If you want to know more on Stalin attitude to Jews there will be soon published a book by Zhores Medvedev ( my translation of the future title from Russian - but book will be in English in stores 'Stalin and his attitude to Jews'). You could take a look at current books of the author on
Amazon
The mentioned book is currently in print in Russia but as Medvedev publishes his books in two languages I expect it will appear on Amazon in English.
so what is the book about - it analyzes almost any aspect of Stalin and Jews relations.
And take my word - Medvedev did not find any antisemitism. And he is well known and accepted as truthful historian in America.
Hope reading professional historic texts on the subject will help you.
I think it will impress you that Stalin condemned many times anti-smitism and I think it would be inresting for you to know that in 20s -40s anti-semits were executed ( yes anti-semitism was one of the worst crime in Soviet Russia under Stalin's control) so among those killed by Stalin you could find antisemits.
I think you would have even more fun reading the book.
well, I am sorry, but as Stalins daugther pointed out, Stalin was a borderline antisemite which, btw. fits nicely with being a communist. Also he killed jews, some of them because they where jews. And had he lived longer, he would have executed his plan to exterminate jews in russia. Considering this information,
No need to sorry. I'm OK with that.
it is just your information which you point IS FALSE.
Stalins daughter wrote in her book on her father attitude to Jew - I read the book and there IS NO there is no wording to painting Stalin as borderline anti-Semite.
Her book is just painting here and there bad features of her father.
Among them that she suspects that due to his attitude to Trotsky he hates all Jews. But suspecting are not the facts.
Next being a communist does not fits nicely into being antisemit, though some communist yes were antisemits here, the same time the biggest part of
communist party were Jews, and many leaders of communist party of Russia were Jews.
And again after all - how do you think it fits - that Marx and Lenin had Jewish ancestors?
The last is another story.
he would have executed his plan to exterminate jews in russia.
He had no plans to exterminate Jews.
The facts that he killed about hundred of Jews near the power IS not any sign of his plans.
Could you see the difference?
Starting from the premise that all man are created equal, no chain of valid reasoning could lead to the condemnation of the rusian people as 'under people'.
But in his book 'Mein Kampf' Hitler made another 'logical' chain - Russians live in cold places that is why they have to consume vodka and should be lazy ( due to that it is not convenient to move fast in cold weather) which leads - they are no means like Germans, they are underpeople and should be exterminated from earth as well as Jews see
http://www.bofhlet.net/tasteless/13/kampf.htm.
Look if one could create such a 'valid' 'logical chain from facts that
Stalin killed Jews ( and several times his killings were just Jews focused) that he was about to exterminate them then that one could develop other logical chains similar to that Hitler did - more important to note that Germans accepted his logical chains for them his theory was natural that is why they repented of the fact. Here important is that - there were no such plans. I specifically searched now for Doctoral case in Russian now and could you believe me (?) that
the story IS completely different than it is painted in the link from washingtontimes provided.
If you do not - but would like to know more - I could provide links to Russian pages and link to online translators so you by yourself could see the difference.
So for me your attitude to that Stalin was about to kill Jews is just attempt to prove your initial joke on that Stalin hated Jews - he did not and it looks like it is difficult to accept the fact. If you would search for details you would find by yourself that there are facts which contradict to you position.
I guess that makes me Chinese (despite actually being white)
;)I think no, as if you followed this conclusion this would be not plausible - you ARE white and live in America (and essentially that study compared Americans and native Chinese not US Chinese - the last were similar in their perceptions as American whites). But the study on perception really reveals cultural differences which one could not measure by himself no could avoid cultural biases in preception ( though I hope:) could compensate by reasoning and knowing weak points).
as for
He doesn't care about why they were killed
to my point of view the facts makes the difference. And pointing weak arguments makes it posible to try to find solution which avoids pifalls in reasoning. The more relevant facts one have the better. And intially arguments were - Stalin killed more than Hitler (and it sounded as if he killed more Jews etc) just needed some clarification which I did.
Again, after all facts could sometimes help avoid problems giving a chance to realise some differences. Actually many people literally suffer from lack of information and being ignorant in specific subject - and having no feedback on that they could suffer doubly - not knowing something and not realising it.
(this suffereing include myself in some situations so I like informative feedback and last somehow is relevant to initial theme of new means to exchange information which builds new society;) ). Thus I provided MORE information. This somehow changed attitude to what was said in topic. And this is already a result.
BTW one more quote from NY Times.
People who do things badly,Dr. Dunning has found in studies , are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.
One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.
The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly.
"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,"
....
the research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is a common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. And this overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.
But Dr. Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated that there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency, and not be aware of it.
In some cases, Dr. Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said.
But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be.
so being polite and correct could have internal problems-while some unpolite exchange of information could be useful. I prefer the last over first:)
judging if something is right instead of evaluating the consequences is the best method to prevent tyranny, it is the first step towards humanitarianism.
Ok . Maybe I start to argue with (probably) americans due to one article which affects how I see things when speaking with americans. is just a few year old article from NY times with the cite ( hope it is OK to cite part of article...)
---
In a series of studies, Dr. Nisbett and Dr. Kaiping Peng of the University of California at Berkeley found that Chinese subjects were less eager to resolve contradictions in a variety of situations than American subjects. Asked to analyze a conflict between mothers and daughters, American subjects quickly came down in favor of one side or the other. Chinese subjects were more likely to see merit on both sides, commenting, for example, that, "Both the mothers and the daughters have failed to understand each other."
Given a choice between two different types of philosophical argument, one based on analytical logic, devoted to resolving contradiction, the other on a dialectical approach, accepting of contradiction, Chinese subjects preferred the dialectical approach, while Americans favored the logical arguments. And Chinese subjects expressed more liking than Americans for proverbs containing a contradiction, like the Chinese saying "Too modest is half boastful." American subjects, Dr. Nisbett said, found such contradictions "rather irritating."
Dr. Nisbett and Dr. Ara Norenzayan of the University of Illinois have also found indications that when logic and experiential knowledge are in conflict, Americans are more likely than Asians to adhere to the rules of formal logic, in keeping with a tradition that in Western societies began with the Ancient Greeks.
For example, presented with a logical sequence like, "All animals with fur hibernate. Rabbits have fur. Therefore rabbits hibernate," the Americans, the researchers found, were more likely to accept the validity of the argument, separating its formal structure, that of a syllogism, from its content, which might or might not be plausible. Asians, in contrast, more frequently judged such syllogisms as invalid based on their implausibility -- not all animals with fur do in fact hibernate.
----
just by feelings that russian culture is a little bit close to asian perception than described above
american way to percept things I just try to show that there are other ways to think on the same facts - and I think that dual way of thinking is t what leads to humanitarianism:) .
As painitng Stalin as ONLY mad guy puts some shade on entire history of my country.
and not dualistic thinking and rather pure logical conclusions could lead to those fasist conclusions made by Hitler that russians ( as well as jews) are 'under people'.
and again - Stalin executed jews but this was not total excutiion of a nation and most jews,so the facts in such article are not even comparable to that what made Hitler.
And there were quite happy jews during Stalins ruling.
I hope you didn't try to justify stalins murders just now.
I do not justify them.
I just explain that there were no general politics to
kill jews.
As you may notice mostly mentioned in article actual execution of jews (including Doctoral case)
were hapining at the last years of Stalin life.
and were not pattern during his life.
as of Svetlana writings. She hated his father.
And even now - when we do not have communist regime any more - she is not considered as a historian although here Stalin is accepted as tiran.
So basing historical events on what Svetlana wrote - just as painitng US policy from the words of offended Iraqies.
As for doctoral case the same waves of terror were imposed for example on Chechens and some other nations or social groups. This HOW Stalin politics worked.
This was insane and ill minded sometimes
But it was not directed against particular nation.
And in gneral WAS directed to consolidate USR on particular tasks. For example doctoral case has a meaning - there were years of cold war. And there were need to urge sitizens for more free work.
So finding BIG plots which were nationally announced served the purpose to orginise population.
So again. I do not justify Stalin. No.
He kiiled enought sitizens of my country...
But he was not jewsih hater of Chechen hater or something. This was just dictator and he had his politics which had GOOD results to how USSR functioned as a state during his leadership.
I just provide some feedback from inside with just a new angle of view.
And yes - the points of view in US and Russia could be MUCH different including affects of cultural differences too.
And let me say that:) I hope I know history of my country a little bit more than any journalist whcih read few books on my coutry history. As I have not only printed words but also live feedback from people around who lived that time - including jews of cause.Who could share HOW the things were in reality. And they were not like you would imagine reading all those horor stories.
I'm not aware if Stalin loved jews but he did not kill them.
Overall just a fact -
Lenin was partly jew (quater jew), Marx had jew ancestors.
From the beginning most of russian communist party leaders were jews.
and again Lenin was almost NO russian at all - he had german jewish asian and only then russian ancestors
also
Most Stalin victims died in labor camps or were executed as 'enemies of nation'
the first was effective slave system which yes build on blood the industrial economy of country but it build! and did it on almost no place - just after 1917 and following civil war russians lived in absolute powetry with NO industry. Having this till WWII Stalin build industrial country.
It is hardly possible using ANY democratic policy.
The last were those who fighted those labor camps.
And again - the most efficient way was to get rid of these people.
So yes Stalin was bloody dictator but he had not general hunam hating theories he just made his work as much fast as he could do.
I think of Singapore as a fairly Authoritarian society which has a stable economy
then just my note I was replying on authoritarian consequences in economy.
Singapure has one of the decentrailised and free economical politics ( as well as Hong Hong does) yet both has authoritarian society in terms what is allowed to express as political points of view.
but economics and freedom to express political points of view are issues which could be separated when you speak on authoritarian society.
so from observed facts - authorizm in economy leads to stagnation of economy. Authorizm ( which has internal source to compete to bring new people and ideas etc) in politics is less harmfull to economy.
But actually I'm not ready to discuss not economic consequenses. NO it was mainly my point in previous posts. Just mixing ALL issues under the same definitins make things difficult to structurize and then give proper responses...
In the the US they have a "Federal Reserve" system which makes various decisions on the US economy. This is a centralized system. What's different about the fed that the US economy hasn't collapsed? The extent of control? The US government is not authoritarian (yet)? Greenspan's good looks?;)
yes it is a matter of degree of centralization.
so - there are economists ( those that get Nodel prizes for economy inventions) which find in their studies which degree of control is OPTIMAL.
so it is matter to follow studies which find that MORE desecentralised economy is better than MORE centrilised economy.
but this is more is a matter of studies and not a matter of idealogy. The centralization of power in communist states were partly result of idelogy and not economic theory. Though - 'sovieti' the basis of communist ideology - is just desentrilesed control of society - BUT these sovieti did NOT work as a control organisations there wer just decorations at least in USSR - so they were that Lenin asked in his books BUT did not performed the task which were assigned to them in Marz and Lenin books.
and that Gorbatchev started to move to desentrilised economy is just communists realised-that sciense conclusions are about to be different with that time current economy practise
Or it could just be the nature of cultures Americans are freaky workaholics and despite the best efforts of the government everyone is still making money, where us eastern Europeans crave someone to really tells us what to do, but not many of us are interested in working a 60 hour work week.
it is just a wrong generalisation. In small private companies russians are workhagolics.
Which work sometimes MORE than 60 hours per week.
in the companies which are badly managed and there are no motivation yes still people tend to have lazy lifes.
But I think that there are just too many examples of hardly working eastern europians just a fact which shows - there is no such thing like cultural addiction to work. This addiction is dictated by outside influcence.
I think it is just that authoritarian governments naturally create the corruption that causes their inevitable collapse.
yes authoritarian governments naturally create the corruption and also naturally create ineffective managment that is why authoritarian societies fail.
For what it's worth, it seems like from my studies and from visiting Russia, tha the soviet architects missed this fundamental point too. Only Gorbachev seemed to realize the importance of establishing a society of quality persons, but his efforts to ban vodka, etc, did not come to much.
Gorbachev was NOT the man who tried to ban vodka this was idea of another man - Egor Ligachev ( the ideologist of communism that time) - the one who harshly critisesed Eltsin and overall was and old minded communist and opponent of Gorbatchev.
It is also untrue that only Gorbachev realized the importance a society of quality persons.
USSR always tried to build more quality pepple but due to means it used it very offen failed.
as for example there were no enought pay for talented engineers they got just 10 percents more than complete loosers who were sitting around in offices. So there were always means to stagnate motivativation of people.
And what actually Gorbatchev attempted to find a way to motivate talented people. But he made it so
badly... he was not really a leader which was needed to made changes.
I could agree with danila in 60s and 70s USSR had the one of the best education system yet it failed to modernise. Though there were attempts -but they failed it is just due to inherited problem - no competition - the top soviet leaders became old men - ALL of them. And they just were no able to control the country on somewhat reliable way.
No devise ways to find new motivations to people as old ones started not to work.
The 'zastoi' or laying off (stagnationg of) all social process was a reality. Still giving a good diagnosis Gorabachev made afwul thing destroing USSR by wrong steps.
But here is the point - he was just fomally educated man. He for example spoke broken russian (in a dialect which caused laught of most population) , he invented one 'idea' after another
and NO one of his ideas looked to be working as they were not thought to the end.
That is why Eltsin later won. There were too much wording from Gorbatchev - and no real deeds.
Partly his failures were just because entire top managment were old men with their thoughs dated by 50s. But partly because the top managers in country were good to speak but not good to think
but what I agree
I say, create decent people who value things for their own sake, and economic success will follow.
education is important.
But look around. Those children who have internal potential to wonder the world HAVE now means - wikipedia,
slashdot etc - there were nothing like that just few years ago.
They could learn MORE, faster.
And having more knowledge they have more influence.
And this is a woderful process.
I'm not sure if you are aware of Ivan Illich ( search google)thoughts that people learn mostly from other people. Partly I agree. We learn from good people.
Just my own example.
My parents lost their parents in WWII - they got not so great education and could not help me much.
The school in late 80s in USSR was not a place where one could wonder the world. It already had signs of stagnation and tendency to be army like organisation.
But there were guys around who pointed to books, to encyclopedias etc.
And:) this helped to me to become quite educated.
At least I self studied english and very proud of that.
So really - more means to exchange information such as wikipedia,different other wiki pages,
forums etc would result that more people would help to more other people to get 'ignition' to wonder the world. So providing impulse to become decent people who value things to some others
is your own interest and is interest of many decent people.
And there are means. slashdot for example:)
So it is in every one own hands - HELP others to start to value things - and them to promote it further. There are means - it is just everyone own will if to help others to start value things or not.
Is it just that all heavily centraliszed economies are doomed to fail?
as of me;)
I think YES.
Centralized control is just non viable way to deal with economy. After all economy is a science. And centralized control is proved to fail to be optimal to allocate resources compared with market ecopnomy etc. Centralized control tends to lay up negative tendencies (as there are no motivation to overcome them - it is just to easy to start to forget and not deal them) and thus centralized societies are about to be weak.
It is not a random coincidence that comunisist states have all been authoritarian. Centraliszed control of economies invite the worst to seize power and facilitate their ability to hold it.
living in the first communist state Russia and knowing a bit the history ( just a remark - I'm against communism as theory as it based on dated assumptions and early theoretic Marx Engels and Lenin are now could be considered ( at least for me and for many others whom I know or communicated with) funny as now we know much more on social systems than they did and what happened in capitalist world -just not at any resemblance to what they predicted in their books)
I just would note , that centralized control appeared as a result of fight and need to concur the world. Initially Lenin did plan to make all the world to be communistic - and Russia was just a base for future fight. and this way ( preparing for war significantly affected how the process developed.
And yes it also was 'exported' to other countries as a model of development.
So yes - centralized control is not a mere coincidence this was caused a number of affecting facts. But if you would think that Taiwan or South Korea dictatorships in the previous century were the necessary attribute of capitalism this would be wrong.
The same way - communism had a potential to be different ( especially that which based on Marxism ) but Marxism was not the main moving force in so called communist countries - but rather leftism type.
I do not welcome communism. And do not think this is a viable theory ( again it is dated and also wrong in most of it's concepts) so I have no desire to agree with starter of thread.
Communism is just underdeveloped theory with many weak points ( rather imagining facts than taking things from how they really exist) and seems could never become a working in practice theory. But painting existed communist states as a necessary result of communism theory is rather a result propaganda pitch which was necessary to fight communist theory.
Communism potentially could be more people friendly and less totalitarian - but always was developed in states which were prepared for fight. And the last is not mere coincidence as capitalist world was always eager to crash communist states since they appeared.
with that kind of ambition we'll be sipping pina coladas on mars in no time at all... who knows what distant planet we'll have colonized by the time our robots are as smart as crickets.
again (as I already placed a link recently in the reply to The Singularity Blinds Sci-Fi thread here on slashdot) I provide a link to Hugo de Garis page
http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/papers/journal.html
please take a look at articles on this page and one dated back to 2000 "AN ARTIFICIAL BRAIN :
Using Evolvable Hardware Techniques to Build a 75 Million Neuron Artificial Brain to Control the Many Behaviors of a Kitten Robot"
after reading his articles ( and Hugo thoughts)
it looks like - developing quite intelligent brains ( and packaging them into robot ( so they fit in size)) will take just some years to experiment more on similar brains and also to reduce size of hardware - not hundreds of years.
It could take maybe 10 -50 years - till we have results far beyond than developed roach brain
and I could predict - by this time humans will not colonize much of distant planets;)
Yes he uses evolution to develop artificial brains - but this is a hardware evolution and this is much faster that regular one ( that we know).
reading his works and some phylosophical notes really made my brain to think in a new way in the respect of evolution and if it is possible to develop ultra artificial brain like that predicted
by Vernor Vinge.
at least Hugo de Garis works give the sence that developing artificial ultrabrain is something achivable in foreseable future.
See Physics Today -- the site is down right now and I cannot get the articles's URL.
Just one example which I remember from the article. To supply 10% of the current US energy consumption from solar cells, one would need enough collectors with an area equal to the state of Massachusetts.
- new solar cells will have efficiency 40 - 60 percents not 10 -20 as mentioned in the article ( these are already working technologies tested this year or that are in development for use (but are developed theoretically))
( seen references on the cite devoted for power from space conference (SPS 2004)on working test of 40 percent efficient solar cells) and also see link
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html
- the article has also contradict statements on nuclear energy
-----
the estimated US uranium resources2 would be exhausted in about 3558 years--less than a human lifespan.
-----
while later
Advanced fission technologies that involve breeder methodologies and the use of thorium, as envisioned by Edward Teller,15 could extend that timeline to many hundreds of years. Controlled nuclear fusion remains a unique energy alternative of vast magnitude. Moreover, nuclear technologies are not dependent on location and land area. At the moment, public concern over potential risks has virtually stopped the pursuit of this energy source.
And taking into account that advanced technologies would use much wider available uranium isotopes and will not require enrichment then the first statement is just wrong.
And again though it is OK to agree with - advanced nuclear energy could provide earth population with energy for hundred of years
it is incorrect that advanced nuclear stations are as dangerous as current one nuclear stations . They are not. They could times safer that current nuclear stations and new nuclear station projects with passive safety include that safety improvements which make Chernobyl like catastrophes just impossible - there are no fluid elements at stations to vaporize.
So basically - even reading such honorable magazine one should have an eye open;)
the latest
estimates suggest that 80 percent of the world's available oil and 95 percent
of its gas remain underground.
That is - a century of use of oil consumed 20 percent of oil.
There will be days when earth will run off oil reserves but I think that 80 percents of oil it is not like running out of it.
so it depends on how one compute and which factors one get into consideration
In short term the shortage will occure due to lack of sufficient working facilities - but it does have few common with running out of oil in general
But they are far away of being technically feasable or cheap enough to be adopted.
energy from moon is feasible with current technology
and could be implemented within near 50 years.
the nuclear power on fast neutrons is less expensive and less pollutant that current nuclear power and as well is scheduled to appear in coming years ( at least in russia we have a national draft program for nuclear energy which predicts heavy development and then use of fast neutron nuclear power stations up to 2030 -2050) - yes this will require investments - but there is nothing fantastic with that.
as of fusion and space elevators - yes these technologies are still not developed but the probability that they will appear soon is quite high. and they will help to solve a lot (the space elevator will make solar energy from space even more cheap , fusion (on Helium3 which could be gathered on moon produces no waste
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/j/tjh233/heliu m3.pdf) )
so there are things which already could be implemented and things which could greatly improve situation
I could agree that more people - more pollution but it is possible to look into ways to reduce such dependency ( again use for cleaning new technologies;) ) such as nanotech) and then also look into what mostly produces pollution - and this is actually - use of coal, gasoline etc - if we get rid of their use - average pollution will reduce.
but i disagree with
My point is that the only and "easy" solution we have right now, that can be implemented, is population reduction.
while India , China have programs to stop growing of population it takes them quite a bit of resources and the results ( especially as I know in India) are not so great.
so where on earth to look at examples of easy implementation of your ideas?
What we know is that higher income and education reduces number of children.
The question is actually how much people with income approx equal to US or that one in Europe the earth could sustain?
from my memory the estimation was about 10-15 billions people. And estimation of the population we have in hands say that earth population will not exceed 15 billions at least for coming 100 years.
as for sustaining energy for every one of 15 billions.
There are alternatives see for example
solar power from moon idea.
also
even though we are far from fusion power - but nuclear power on fast neutrons ( as we call it here in Russia not sure what is the proper call for the approach in English) ( so not that well known nuclear power stations on slow neutrons but that power stations based on new approaches with greater efficiency) could provide energy for the earth ( with the already known resources of uranium) for 2500 years! ) to reduce nuclear pollution it is possible to use such things as http://www.anlw.anl.gov/htdocs/anlw_history/reacto rs/ifr.html
with recycling of nuclear waster.
That is - I think that rather than try to control growth of population it is better to devise and pursue clean ways to get power and provide better living standards for everybody - then there will be less pollution and the growth of population will stop.
Then the same politicians crippled the Space Station by putting it in an orbit that would let them cooperate with Russia, but made it useless for its original purpose. They broke the Space Station for a public show of how happy things are politically with Russia.
just to add few cents from Russian point of view.
Russians were not happy on abandoning their own project Mir station - and more - there are those here in Russia who are unhappy that we spend money on ISS - which costs us quite a bit of money and yes - brings few scientific output.
To most Russian space specialists ISS is not 'up to date' space station ( due to the organisation of process and rush when it was designed) - it is more costly to maintain than estimated cost for some projects we had here on paper and which Russians could launch after Mir ended it's mission if there were no ISS commitments .
Overall - I could say that common beliefs here among specialists
and which are articulated ( years before ISS was launched) for example by former chief designer of Salyut and Mir space stations is - manned space researches are cost ineffective and failed to meet expectations which were about manned flights in 60s to 80s. It is like the fact it is much more efficient to use robotic satellites but manned space flights bring more public attention and are politically more attractive and the last point always wins when funding solutions are made.
Thus the decision to launch robotic mission to repair Hubble seems a good move from the point of getting more output from money.
As for what russians had from launching ISS - here there were much public protests against abandoning Mir, till now seems no real scientific results were achieved on Russian part and now, when US declared that they will stop shuttle missions since 2010 and will limit current ISS building process puts a lot of hurdle on russian space budget with even less perspective that IS scientific will be somehow effective in future. And as Souz becomes the major mean to deliver humans to ISS and each costs money - which no one expected to spend
The Russians are posed in very difficult situation - spend money with almost no political or scientific results - ISS is mostly respected as US creature, science is not effective with reduced support from US, and Russians are about to spend more money to support operations.
As a matter of fact - we have much less developed economy so launching additional Souzes is not a fun but a big hurdle which in turn stifles russian attempts to develop modern robotic satellites due to lack of funding ( space budget is one and limited by relatively small economy- and if money spent on Souz es no money on unmanned flights).
So - NASA is moving in right direction - and rusians are having hurdles to develop due to need to support flights to ISS.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, russian historicans are not all they are cranked up to be, especially from the soviet era. No offense, but everyone born before 1990 in russia must at least be scrutenized to ensure he/she has freed themselves from indoctrination.
Medvedev's family was hardly hit in Stalin time and more they had to immigrate to Great Britain in 70s thus books by Medvedevs( two brothers - but the book on Jews is written by one of them) at least could be considered relatively freeas of indoctrination. the situation was that at the last years of communist regime here in 80s the most of the ideology indoctrinated itself - it just did not work in practice and all see that. That is why absolute liberal theories were accepted in early 90s. Note that Gaidar was not social democrat - no he was extreme liberal. But Ok. there is always chance that someone is indoctrinated. There are solutions - and I think the best is to adhere to old good presumption of innocence. And prove that one is indoctrinated ( unless he by himself declare him as communist). I think that it is not so difficult to spot someone's ideological inclinations. But again - there are reasons to believe to Medvedev writings ( he is really less possibly indoctrinated than others) and in his book he writes what I told you - there were crimes against different people but there were no Stalin idea to exterminate Jews. And I think that reading Medvedev arguments will help you to understand the situation that time better, other than adhere to common ( and wrong and somewhat is fascist-like (prejudice) belief I'd add) belief - all Russians born before 90 are indoctrinated :) most are not ( the statistical analysis of votes reveals that most of people under 40 do not vote for communists here. And among older people those having higher education vote much less frequently for communists as well than those less educated old men.
Last voting revealed 15 % of support for communists ( taking into account that communist votes are among most active and all of them vote we could say that there are less than 10 % of population here which are to some degree have old ideology in heart.
Thinking modern plants are proof agains accidents is STUPID
with any current plants there are documents on possible problems ( they are known at least - there are no unexpected (in theory )problems). To most of them there are solutions. Still there are technical details on what could fail. But any failures are now thousands times less possible than at Chernobyl.
But it is REALLY possible to develop designs of future nuclear fission plants which have no danger of radioactive wasting of environment even if plant would be specifically destroyed. Such as special passive ways to stop reactors ( not as currently using rods - but stopping the reactor without any rods just in case of any anomaly, not using liquids in process ( so that no spills) etc.
It is all is possible and this is not case for stupidity but the case of possible technical solutions and outcomes. It is not like belief in myth. It is a matter of technical choice. If there is will - then in near future it is possible to build problem free nuclear fission plans. But of cause if citizens will declare everything to be stupied then new plans will never be developed and constructed.
as of all current nuclear fision plants - yes still each of them has some problems ( but not such that they could lead to anything similar in Chernobyl - that case tought ALL a lot, just do not take engineers for stupieds. Taking them for specialists would be a wiser step.
The lessons from Chernobyl are already taken. All new reactors have times more protection.
as of future and using unreached uranium ( as reserves of uranium 235 which is currently used in nuclear fission stations will come to end within 40-100 years ) there are already suggested designs which COULD not explode at any imaginable circumstances as there will not be ANY fluids in process. and also even if all automatics will fail the reactor will stop gracefully by itself.
( I use data from Russian report on history and future of Russian fission program http://old.minatom.ru/presscenter/document/news/st rat.pdf
the report is in Russian )
but the link just to show that there are official documents on the current trends and future ideas. Which deal with any problems one could figure out from Chernobyl case and deal with full spectrum of related problems ( radioactive waste etc).
So. Using Chernobyl as an argument now when the reasons of the Chernobyl tragedy ( those technical problems etc) are now not applicable to fission stations as no such constructions and technical solutions are used (- there were a lot done to avoid any similar to Chernobyl occurrences by changing design and after performed changes such tragedies could not happen ), and it is not possible to find similarities in that tragedy to technical solutions for future of nuclear fission.
I think that Chernobyl example is just historical example of nuclear industry problems - but the example which has little or no relation to current ( and even less to future) nuclear industry.
The idea that your language determines the way you see the world (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has been around for many decades
It would be intresting to know what others think on related stories - the effect of culture on the way one thinks.
"Article 1 - Culture and cognition"
and another such article (intially from NY Times)
"Article 2 - How Culture Molds Habits of Thought"
?The second reply from me.
If you want to know more on Stalin attitude to Jews there will be soon published a book by Zhores Medvedev ( my translation of the future title from Russian - but book will be in English in stores 'Stalin and his attitude to Jews'). You could take a look at current books of the author on Amazon
The mentioned book is currently in print in Russia but as Medvedev publishes his books in two languages I expect it will appear on Amazon in English.
so what is the book about - it analyzes almost any aspect of Stalin and Jews relations. And take my word - Medvedev did not find any antisemitism. And he is well known and accepted as truthful historian in America.
Hope reading professional historic texts on the subject will help you. I think it will impress you that Stalin condemned many times anti-smitism and I think it would be inresting for you to know that in 20s -40s anti-semits were executed ( yes anti-semitism was one of the worst crime in Soviet Russia under Stalin's control) so among those killed by Stalin you could find antisemits. I think you would have even more fun reading the book.
well, I am sorry, but as Stalins daugther pointed out, Stalin was a borderline antisemite which, btw. fits nicely with being a communist. Also he killed jews, some of them because they where jews. And had he lived longer, he would have executed his plan to exterminate jews in russia. Considering this information,
No need to sorry. I'm OK with that. it is just your information which you point IS FALSE. Stalins daughter wrote in her book on her father attitude to Jew - I read the book and there IS NO there is no wording to painting Stalin as borderline anti-Semite. Her book is just painting here and there bad features of her father. Among them that she suspects that due to his attitude to Trotsky he hates all Jews. But suspecting are not the facts. Next being a communist does not fits nicely into being antisemit, though some communist yes were antisemits here, the same time the biggest part of communist party were Jews, and many leaders of communist party of Russia were Jews. And again after all - how do you think it fits - that Marx and Lenin had Jewish ancestors? The last is another story. he would have executed his plan to exterminate jews in russia. He had no plans to exterminate Jews. The facts that he killed about hundred of Jews near the power IS not any sign of his plans. Could you see the difference?Starting from the premise that all man are created equal, no chain of valid reasoning could lead to the condemnation of the rusian people as 'under people'.
But in his book 'Mein Kampf' Hitler made another 'logical' chain - Russians live in cold places that is why they have to consume vodka and should be lazy ( due to that it is not convenient to move fast in cold weather) which leads - they are no means like Germans, they are underpeople and should be exterminated from earth as well as Jews see http://www.bofhlet.net/tasteless/13/kampf.htm.
Look if one could create such a 'valid' 'logical chain from facts that Stalin killed Jews ( and several times his killings were just Jews focused) that he was about to exterminate them then that one could develop other logical chains similar to that Hitler did - more important to note that Germans accepted his logical chains for them his theory was natural that is why they repented of the fact. Here important is that - there were no such plans. I specifically searched now for Doctoral case in Russian now and could you believe me (?) that the story IS completely different than it is painted in the link from washingtontimes provided.
If you do not - but would like to know more - I could provide links to Russian pages and link to online translators so you by yourself could see the difference.
So for me your attitude to that Stalin was about to kill Jews is just attempt to prove your initial joke on that Stalin hated Jews - he did not and it looks like it is difficult to accept the fact. If you would search for details you would find by yourself that there are facts which contradict to you position.
I guess that makes me Chinese (despite actually being white)
He doesn't care about why they were killed
to my point of view the facts makes the difference. And pointing weak arguments makes it posible to try to find solution which avoids pifalls in reasoning. The more relevant facts one have the better. And intially arguments were - Stalin killed more than Hitler (and it sounded as if he killed more Jews etc) just needed some clarification which I did.
Again, after all facts could sometimes help avoid problems giving a chance to realise some differences. Actually many people literally suffer from lack of information and being ignorant in specific subject - and having no feedback on that they could suffer doubly - not knowing something and not realising it. (this suffereing include myself in some situations so I like informative feedback and last somehow is relevant to initial theme of new means to exchange information which builds new society ;) ). Thus I provided MORE information. This somehow changed attitude to what was said in topic. And this is already a result.
BTW one more quote from NY Times.
so being polite and correct could have internal problems-while some unpolite exchange of information could be useful. I prefer the last over first :)
just by feelings that russian culture is a little bit close to asian perception than described above american way to percept things I just try to show that there are other ways to think on the same facts - and I think that dual way of thinking is t what leads to humanitarianism :) .
As painitng Stalin as ONLY mad guy puts some shade on entire history of my country.
and not dualistic thinking and rather pure logical conclusions could lead to those fasist conclusions made by Hitler that russians ( as well as jews) are 'under people'.
and again - Stalin executed jews but this was not total excutiion of a nation and most jews ,so the facts in such article are not even comparable to that what made Hitler.
And there were quite happy jews during Stalins ruling.
I do not justify them. I just explain that there were no general politics to kill jews. As you may notice mostly mentioned in article actual execution of jews (including Doctoral case) were hapining at the last years of Stalin life. and were not pattern during his life. as of Svetlana writings. She hated his father. And even now - when we do not have communist regime any more - she is not considered as a historian although here Stalin is accepted as tiran.
So basing historical events on what Svetlana wrote - just as painitng US policy from the words of offended Iraqies.
As for doctoral case the same waves of terror were imposed for example on Chechens and some other nations or social groups. This HOW Stalin politics worked. This was insane and ill minded sometimes But it was not directed against particular nation. And in gneral WAS directed to consolidate USR on particular tasks. For example doctoral case has a meaning - there were years of cold war. And there were need to urge sitizens for more free work. So finding BIG plots which were nationally announced served the purpose to orginise population.
So again. I do not justify Stalin. No. He kiiled enought sitizens of my country... But he was not jewsih hater of Chechen hater or something. This was just dictator and he had his politics which had GOOD results to how USSR functioned as a state during his leadership.
I just provide some feedback from inside with just a new angle of view. And yes - the points of view in US and Russia could be MUCH different including affects of cultural differences too. And let me say that :) I hope I know history of my country a little bit more than any journalist whcih read few books on my coutry history. As I have not only printed words but also live feedback from people around who lived that time - including jews of cause.Who could share HOW the things were in reality. And they were not like you would imagine reading all those horor stories.
I'm not aware if Stalin loved jews but he did not kill them. Overall just a fact - Lenin was partly jew (quater jew), Marx had jew ancestors.
From the beginning most of russian communist party leaders were jews. and again Lenin was almost NO russian at all - he had german jewish asian and only then russian ancestors
also
Most Stalin victims died in labor camps or were executed as 'enemies of nation'
the first was effective slave system which yes build on blood the industrial economy of country but it build! and did it on almost no place - just after 1917 and following civil war russians lived in absolute powetry with NO industry. Having this till WWII Stalin build industrial country. It is hardly possible using ANY democratic policy.
The last were those who fighted those labor camps. And again - the most efficient way was to get rid of these people.
So yes Stalin was bloody dictator but he had not general hunam hating theories he just made his work as much fast as he could do.
I think of Singapore as a fairly Authoritarian society which has a stable economy
then just my note I was replying on authoritarian consequences in economy.
Singapure has one of the decentrailised and free economical politics ( as well as Hong Hong does) yet both has authoritarian society in terms what is allowed to express as political points of view.
but economics and freedom to express political points of view are issues which could be separated when you speak on authoritarian society.
so from observed facts - authorizm in economy leads to stagnation of economy. Authorizm ( which has internal source to compete to bring new people and ideas etc) in politics is less harmfull to economy.
But actually I'm not ready to discuss not economic consequenses. NO it was mainly my point in previous posts. Just mixing ALL issues under the same definitins make things difficult to structurize and then give proper responses ...
yes it is a matter of degree of centralization. so - there are economists ( those that get Nodel prizes for economy inventions) which find in their studies which degree of control is OPTIMAL. so it is matter to follow studies which find that MORE desecentralised economy is better than MORE centrilised economy. but this is more is a matter of studies and not a matter of idealogy. The centralization of power in communist states were partly result of idelogy and not economic theory. Though - 'sovieti' the basis of communist ideology - is just desentrilesed control of society - BUT these sovieti did NOT work as a control organisations there wer just decorations at least in USSR - so they were that Lenin asked in his books BUT did not performed the task which were assigned to them in Marz and Lenin books. and that Gorbatchev started to move to desentrilised economy is just communists realised-that sciense conclusions are about to be different with that time current economy practise
Or it could just be the nature of cultures Americans are freaky workaholics and despite the best efforts of the government everyone is still making money, where us eastern Europeans crave someone to really tells us what to do, but not many of us are interested in working a 60 hour work week. it is just a wrong generalisation. In small private companies russians are workhagolics. Which work sometimes MORE than 60 hours per week. in the companies which are badly managed and there are no motivation yes still people tend to have lazy lifes. But I think that there are just too many examples of hardly working eastern europians just a fact which shows - there is no such thing like cultural addiction to work. This addiction is dictated by outside influcence.I think it is just that authoritarian governments naturally create the corruption that causes their inevitable collapse.
yes authoritarian governments naturally create the corruption and also naturally create ineffective managment that is why authoritarian societies fail.For what it's worth, it seems like from my studies and from visiting Russia, tha the soviet architects missed this fundamental point too. Only Gorbachev seemed to realize the importance of establishing a society of quality persons, but his efforts to ban vodka, etc, did not come to much.
Gorbachev was NOT the man who tried to ban vodka this was idea of another man - Egor Ligachev ( the ideologist of communism that time) - the one who harshly critisesed Eltsin and overall was and old minded communist and opponent of Gorbatchev. It is also untrue that only Gorbachev realized the importance a society of quality persons. USSR always tried to build more quality pepple but due to means it used it very offen failed. as for example there were no enought pay for talented engineers they got just 10 percents more than complete loosers who were sitting around in offices. So there were always means to stagnate motivativation of people. And what actually Gorbatchev attempted to find a way to motivate talented people. But he made it so badly... he was not really a leader which was needed to made changes.
I could agree with danila in 60s and 70s USSR had the one of the best education system yet it failed to modernise. Though there were attempts -but they failed it is just due to inherited problem - no competition - the top soviet leaders became old men - ALL of them. And they just were no able to control the country on somewhat reliable way. No devise ways to find new motivations to people as old ones started not to work.The 'zastoi' or laying off (stagnationg of) all social process was a reality. Still giving a good diagnosis Gorabachev made afwul thing destroing USSR by wrong steps.
But here is the point - he was just fomally educated man. He for example spoke broken russian (in a dialect which caused laught of most population) , he invented one 'idea' after another and NO one of his ideas looked to be working as they were not thought to the end. That is why Eltsin later won. There were too much wording from Gorbatchev - and no real deeds. Partly his failures were just because entire top managment were old men with their thoughs dated by 50s. But partly because the top managers in country were good to speak but not good to think
but what I agree
I say, create decent people who value things for their own sake, and economic success will follow. education is important.But look around. Those children who have internal potential to wonder the world HAVE now means - wikipedia, slashdot etc - there were nothing like that just few years ago. They could learn MORE, faster. And having more knowledge they have more influence.
And this is a woderful process. I'm not sure if you are aware of Ivan Illich ( search google)thoughts that people learn mostly from other people. Partly I agree. We learn from good people.
Just my own example. My parents lost their parents in WWII - they got not so great education and could not help me much. The school in late 80s in USSR was not a place where one could wonder the world. It already had signs of stagnation and tendency to be army like organisation. But there were guys around who pointed to books, to encyclopedias etc. And :) this helped to me to become quite educated.
At least I self studied english and very proud of that.
So really - more means to exchange information such as wikipedia,different other wiki pages, forums etc would result that more people would help to more other people to get 'ignition' to wonder the world. So providing impulse to become decent people who value things to some others is your own interest and is interest of many decent people. And there are means. slashdot for example :)
So it is in every one own hands - HELP others to start to value things - and them to promote it further. There are means - it is just everyone own will if to help others to start value things or not.
Is it just that all heavily centraliszed economies are doomed to fail? as of me ;)
I think YES.
Centralized control is just non viable way to deal with economy. After all economy is a science. And centralized control is proved to fail to be optimal to allocate resources compared with market ecopnomy etc. Centralized control tends to lay up negative tendencies (as there are no motivation to overcome them - it is just to easy to start to forget and not deal them) and thus centralized societies are about to be weak.
living in the first communist state Russia and knowing a bit the history ( just a remark - I'm against communism as theory as it based on dated assumptions and early theoretic Marx Engels and Lenin are now could be considered ( at least for me and for many others whom I know or communicated with) funny as now we know much more on social systems than they did and what happened in capitalist world -just not at any resemblance to what they predicted in their books) I just would note , that centralized control appeared as a result of fight and need to concur the world. Initially Lenin did plan to make all the world to be communistic - and Russia was just a base for future fight. and this way ( preparing for war significantly affected how the process developed.
And yes it also was 'exported' to other countries as a model of development. So yes - centralized control is not a mere coincidence this was caused a number of affecting facts. But if you would think that Taiwan or South Korea dictatorships in the previous century were the necessary attribute of capitalism this would be wrong.
The same way - communism had a potential to be different ( especially that which based on Marxism ) but Marxism was not the main moving force in so called communist countries - but rather leftism type.
I do not welcome communism. And do not think this is a viable theory ( again it is dated and also wrong in most of it's concepts) so I have no desire to agree with starter of thread.
Communism is just underdeveloped theory with many weak points ( rather imagining facts than taking things from how they really exist) and seems could never become a working in practice theory. But painting existed communist states as a necessary result of communism theory is rather a result propaganda pitch which was necessary to fight communist theory.
Communism potentially could be more people friendly and less totalitarian - but always was developed in states which were prepared for fight. And the last is not mere coincidence as capitalist world was always eager to crash communist states since they appeared.
again (as I already placed a link recently in the reply to The Singularity Blinds Sci-Fi thread here on slashdot) I provide a link to Hugo de Garis page http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/papers/journal.html
please take a look at articles on this page and one dated back to 2000 "AN ARTIFICIAL BRAIN : Using Evolvable Hardware Techniques to Build a 75 Million Neuron Artificial Brain to Control the Many Behaviors of a Kitten Robot"
after reading his articles ( and Hugo thoughts) it looks like - developing quite intelligent brains ( and packaging them into robot ( so they fit in size)) will take just some years to experiment more on similar brains and also to reduce size of hardware - not hundreds of years.
It could take maybe 10 -50 years - till we have results far beyond than developed roach brain and I could predict - by this time humans will not colonize much of distant planets ;)
Take a look at works by Hugo de Garis ( articles, papers) http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/
on evolvable hardware.
Yes he uses evolution to develop artificial brains - but this is a hardware evolution and this is much faster that regular one ( that we know).
reading his works and some phylosophical notes really made my brain to think in a new way in the respect of evolution and if it is possible to develop ultra artificial brain like that predicted by Vernor Vinge. at least Hugo de Garis works give the sence that developing artificial ultrabrain is something achivable in foreseable future.
after reading the messages I decided to provide some links on else one alternative solution to shortage of oil and oil dependency.
Let us consider natural gas.
1. the reserves
http://www.allyoucanread.com/rank_natural_gas_pro2. there is available technology to convert natural gas to liquid fuel. some links http://www.syntroleum.com/News/Articles/Synthetic% 20Diesel.PDF
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2003_energypolicy/documen ts/2003-08-21_hearing/2003-08-21_CORKADELL_CLAUDE. PDF
the estimated price for the fuel approx $12. barrel ( and no need to process crude oil)
3. the natural gas and Gas to Liquid converted fuel as well are less pollutant ( less CO2, sulfur etc) than oil based fuel.
if you mean http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html
then- new solar cells will have efficiency 40 - 60 percents not 10 -20 as mentioned in the article ( these are already working technologies tested this year or that are in development for use (but are developed theoretically)) ( seen references on the cite devoted for power from space conference (SPS 2004)on working test of 40 percent efficient solar cells) and also see link http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html
- the article has also contradict statements on nuclear energy
while later
And taking into account that advanced technologies would use much wider available uranium isotopes and will not require enrichment then the first statement is just wrong.
And again though it is OK to agree with - advanced nuclear energy could provide earth population with energy for hundred of years
it is incorrect that advanced nuclear stations are as dangerous as current one nuclear stations . They are not. They could times safer that current nuclear stations and new nuclear station projects with passive safety include that safety improvements which make Chernobyl like catastrophes just impossible - there are no fluid elements at stations to vaporize.
So basically - even reading such honorable magazine one should have an eye open ;)
There will be days when earth will run off oil reserves but I think that 80 percents of oil it is not like running out of it.
so it depends on how one compute and which factors one get into consideration In short term the shortage will occure due to lack of sufficient working facilities - but it does have few common with running out of oil in general
energy from moon is feasible with current technology and could be implemented within near 50 years.
the nuclear power on fast neutrons is less expensive and less pollutant that current nuclear power and as well is scheduled to appear in coming years ( at least in russia we have a national draft program for nuclear energy which predicts heavy development and then use of fast neutron nuclear power stations up to 2030 -2050) - yes this will require investments - but there is nothing fantastic with that.
as of fusion and space elevators - yes these technologies are still not developed but the probability that they will appear soon is quite high. and they will help to solve a lot (the space elevator will make solar energy from space even more cheap , fusion (on Helium3 which could be gathered on moon produces no waste http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/j/tjh233/heliu m3.pdf) )
so there are things which already could be implemented and things which could greatly improve situation
I could agree that more people - more pollution but it is possible to look into ways to reduce such dependency ( again use for cleaning new technologies ;) ) such as nanotech) and then also look into what mostly produces pollution - and this is actually - use of coal, gasoline etc - if we get rid of their use - average pollution will reduce.
but i disagree with
while India , China have programs to stop growing of population it takes them quite a bit of resources and the results ( especially as I know in India) are not so great.
so where on earth to look at examples of easy implementation of your ideas?
What we know is that higher income and education reduces number of children.
The question is actually how much people with income approx equal to US or that one in Europe the earth could sustain?
from my memory the estimation was about 10-15 billions people. And estimation of the population we have in hands say that earth population will not exceed 15 billions at least for coming 100 years.
as for sustaining energy for every one of 15 billions. There are alternatives see for example solar power from moon idea.
(Slashdot had an article on solar power energy report to congress last year, later I found the link to report of the author of idea see http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/d efault/tech_papers/17th_congress/4_1_33.asp
)
Coupled with possible space elevator http://www.spaceelevator.com/ and new advances in solar panels with higher efficiency such as for example approach here http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html
the paper
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets /images/2004/Mar-24/Multiband%20Semiconductor.pdf
it will cost to develop even less than estimated in original suggestion and thus cost of power will be even less.
also even though we are far from fusion power - but nuclear power on fast neutrons ( as we call it here in Russia not sure what is the proper call for the approach in English) ( so not that well known nuclear power stations on slow neutrons but that power stations based on new approaches with greater efficiency) could provide energy for the earth ( with the already known resources of uranium) for 2500 years! ) to reduce nuclear pollution it is possible to use such things as http://www.anlw.anl.gov/htdocs/anlw_history/reacto rs/ifr.html
with recycling of nuclear waster.
That is - I think that rather than try to control growth of population it is better to devise and pursue clean ways to get power and provide better living standards for everybody - then there will be less pollution and the growth of population will stop.
just to add few cents from Russian point of view. Russians were not happy on abandoning their own project Mir station - and more - there are those here in Russia who are unhappy that we spend money on ISS - which costs us quite a bit of money and yes - brings few scientific output. To most Russian space specialists ISS is not 'up to date' space station ( due to the organisation of process and rush when it was designed) - it is more costly to maintain than estimated cost for some projects we had here on paper and which Russians could launch after Mir ended it's mission if there were no ISS commitments .
Overall - I could say that common beliefs here among specialists and which are articulated ( years before ISS was launched) for example by former chief designer of Salyut and Mir space stations is - manned space researches are cost ineffective and failed to meet expectations which were about manned flights in 60s to 80s. It is like the fact it is much more efficient to use robotic satellites but manned space flights bring more public attention and are politically more attractive and the last point always wins when funding solutions are made.
Thus the decision to launch robotic mission to repair Hubble seems a good move from the point of getting more output from money.
As for what russians had from launching ISS - here there were much public protests against abandoning Mir, till now seems no real scientific results were achieved on Russian part and now, when US declared that they will stop shuttle missions since 2010 and will limit current ISS building process puts a lot of hurdle on russian space budget with even less perspective that IS scientific will be somehow effective in future. And as Souz becomes the major mean to deliver humans to ISS and each costs money - which no one expected to spend The Russians are posed in very difficult situation - spend money with almost no political or scientific results - ISS is mostly respected as US creature, science is not effective with reduced support from US, and Russians are about to spend more money to support operations. As a matter of fact - we have much less developed economy so launching additional Souzes is not a fun but a big hurdle which in turn stifles russian attempts to develop modern robotic satellites due to lack of funding ( space budget is one and limited by relatively small economy- and if money spent on Souz es no money on unmanned flights).
So - NASA is moving in right direction - and rusians are having hurdles to develop due to need to support flights to ISS.
and here http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/angara_ sum.shtml
Angara 5 specs could be viewed here http://members.lycos.co.uk/spaceprojects/lv/angara .html