WeKey - User contributions [en]

History of the OFC

2022-09-23T18:21:25Z

WikiSysop: /* History of the Oceanside Futurological Congress */

[[Oceanside Futurological Congress]] --> here
----

<center>
==History of the Oceanside Futurological Congress==
</center>
This group was originally formed of, by and for the participants in Jess Brewer's Elder College course "'''''[http://jick.net/futures Possible Futures]]'''''", held in the VIU classrom in the Parksville Community Center (above the Library). That course was just for fun (speculating about what the future might be like in several decades) but we opened more doors than we could explore, so we decided to continue on our own.

For two years we met from 2-4 PM on (unless otherwise specified) the '''second''' Tuesday of each month, starting on 13 Feb 2018, in the meeting room upstairs at the ''Qualicum Foods'' grocery store in (you guessed it) Qualicum Beach. (The first session on 16 Jan was at ''Serious Coffee'' located in south Parksville where Northwest Bay Road intersects the East Island Highway; but it was too noisy for a thoughtful discussion.)

We then were offered the Board Room at Qualicum Foods in (you guessed it) Qualicum Beach. It has no A/V facilities, but it has a nice big table with comfortable chairs, ideal for plain talk -- which turns out to be a pretty productive medium! See [[OFC Venue Options]].

On 08 Aug 2018 I disabled self-registration, following a flurry of new users with suspicious-looking email addresses (from which none of them have replied in response to gradually less welcoming greetings). If you want an account, ask [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com me] for one, sending me all your information by email. -- '''Jess'''

Then in March of 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic forced us into physical isolation, along with most of the world. But we were not to be diverted so easily from our discussions! Since then we have been meeting ''weekly'' using ''[http://zoom.us Zoom]''. The meetings have no longer been rigorously adhering to the format below, but we all have pretty good habits by now:

====Standard Agenda for Meetings====
* 2:00 Logistics
* 2:05 Presentation by Convener/Moderator (projector provided; BYO computer)
* 2:20 '''Free Discussion''' (No "monopolizing", please!)
* 2:50 Coffee (etc.) Break
* 3:00 '''Free Discussion''' (No "monopolizing", please!)
* 3:30 Summary & Conclusions (if any)
* 3:40 Selection of next month's Topic & Convener/Moderator
* 4:00 Adjourn (private discussions may continue)

[[OFC Meeting 1]] (16 Jan 2018 at Serious Coffee): FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS - [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess H. Brewer]

[[OFC Meeting 2]] (13 Feb 2018 at Qualicum Foods): PHILOSOPHY AND OUR FUTURE - [mailto:hwitmans@shaw.ca Hendrik Witmans]

[[OFC Meeting 3]] (13 Mar 2018 at Qualicum Foods): STUFF -
[mailto:2rolandu3@gmail.com Roland Uphoff] & [mailto:jane.juda@gmail.com Jane Juda]

[[OFC Meeting 4]] (10 Apr 2018 at Qualicum Foods): SENIORS - [mailto:kebarnes@shaw.ca Keith Barnes]

[[OFC Meeting 5]] (08 May 2018 at Qualicum Foods): BACK TO THE FUTURE -
[mailto:donthecoach@rogers.com Don Giberson]

[[OFC Meeting 6]] (12 June 2018 at Qualicum Foods): DEATH IN THE FUTURE -
[mailto:flyermanders@gmail.com Philip Manders]

[[OFC Meeting 7]] (10 July 2018 at Qualicum Foods): The FUTURE of TRANSPORTATION - [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess H. Brewer]

[[OFC Meeting 8]] (14 Aug 2018 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") about possible topics ''etc.''

[[OFC Meeting 9]] (11 Sep 2018 at Qualicum Foods): CHINA of the FUTURE -
[mailto:kebarnes@shaw.ca Keith Barnes]

[[OFC Meeting 10]] (09 Oct 2018 at Qualicum Foods): Toward a FUTURE MERITOCRACY -
[mailto:2rolandu3@gmail.com Roland Uphoff]

[[OFC Meeting 11]] (13 Nov 2018 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") about possible topics ''etc.''

[[OFC Meeting 12]] (11 Dec 2018 at Qualicum Foods): POPULATION and IMMIGRATION - [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess H. Brewer]

Meeting on 08 Jan 2019 ''cancelled'' due to possible icy roads.

Meeting on 12 Feb 2019 ''cancelled'' due to heavy snowfall.

[[OFC Meeting 13]] (12 Mar 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") about possible topics ''etc.''

[[OFC Meeting 14]] (09 Apr 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") with an initial focus on Future Farming

Meeting on 14 May 2019 at Qualicum Foods: Informal Discussion between Hank & Keith on assorted topics (everyone else was away)

[[OFC Meeting 15]] (11 Jun 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all")

[[OFC Meeting 16]] (09 Jul 2019 at Qualicum Foods): DEMOCRACY in the FUTURE -
[mailto:flyermanders@gmail.com Philip Manders] & free-for-all

[[OFC Meeting 17]] (13 Aug 2019 at Qualicum Foods): ENERGY in the FUTURE - Another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 18]] (10 Sep 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Yet another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 19]] (08 Oct 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Yet another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 20]] (12 Nov 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Still another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 21]] (10 Dec 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Starting a NEW free-for-all!

Meeting on 14 Jan 2020 ''cancelled'' due to heavy snowfall.

[[OFC Meeting 22]] (11 Feb 2020 at Qualicum Foods): Starting another new free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 23]] (10 Mar 2020 at Qualicum Foods): Another new free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 24]] (14 Apr 2020) will be held by videoconference ([http://zoom.us Zoom]) and '''on this wiki'''.

Subsequent meetings will be ''via'' [http://zoom.us Zoom] '''every''' Tuesday at 2 PM until further notice.

Obviously this "History" is incomplete and needs updating.

----

'''[[OFC EXTRAS]]: Spin-Offs, Notices, Polemics ''etc.'''''

OFC Meeting 17

2022-09-23T18:20:48Z

WikiSysop: WikiSysop moved page OFC Meeting 17a to OFC Meeting 17 without leaving a redirect

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''13 Aug 2019''': '''Jess''' on
== ENERGY in the FUTURE ==
</center>

No matter how determined we are to "''use it up; wear it out; make it do; do without''", if we are going to ''have'' a future we are going to need a lot of '''power''' (energy per unit time) to solve the problems that ''must'' be solved -- like transportation of people and goods, provision of clean water and air, communication and computation. (''Alphabet'', Google's parent company, used an average of 0.65 billion watts of power in 2015. That's the output of a good-sized nuke.) We need ''more'' power, not ''less''. So where are we going to get it? Here (below Philip's comments) are a few possible topics; we certainly won't get to them all.

----

'''''Philip''''': To avoid the worst effects of global heating, the extraction and burning of all fossil fuels must be phased out (unless the CO2 is captured) over the next few decades starting ASAP. This means for example that all new tar sands development needs to be halted and production steadily cut back - fortunately investors are already acknowledging this. Also on the demand side, vehicles using fossil fuels need to be phased out (perhaps using high taxes) and replaced by battery electric and fuel cell powered vehicles, and buildings upgraded to zero net energy standards. Also of course coal and gas power plants (that do not capture CO2) must be replaced by renewable or nuclear power. Note that the Canadian government will require all coal power plants that do not capture CO2 to shut down by 2030.

----

=== NUCLEAR POWER ===

==== Fusion ====
Let's start at the beginning: '''''all''''' the energy we presently have access to comes from '''gravity''' and '''fusion'''. First gravity drew hydrogen together into ''stars'' and compressed it until it began to fuse into deuterium, helium, lithium and so on, up to iron, where fusion stops being exothermic. The older stars eventually burned out and collapsed under gravity until the electrons of atoms were pushed into the nuclei, turning protons into neutrons and electron neutrinos in catastrophic explosions called ''supernovas'', in which the plentiful extra neutrons made even heavier nuclei, including unstable elements like uranium. The clouds of debris drifted around for a while until gravity again caused them to collect into new stars like the Sun and planets like the Earth, where that stored fusion and gravitational energy is still being released in the Earth's core (and, incidentally, in human-made reactors).

Will we eventually be able to "harness" fusion directly to make electric power? Probably, someday; but IMNERHO it will not be a significant improvement over fission. Ask me why if you are interested; I won't use up space here on that issue.

==== Fission Reactor Designs ====
American nuclear reactors have been scaled-up versions of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover's design for the US Navy's submarines since 1955. The fission of U-235 or Pu-239 releases energy as (mainly) fast neutrons, which slow down by scattering in the pressurized water surrounding the reactor core and thereby deposit their energy as '''heat''' (''disordered'' energy) in the water, which boils to make ''steam'', which runs turbines to make electricity. Most of the energy produced is lost as waste heat. This basic process (fission --> neutrons --> heat --> heat engine --> electricity) is common to all nuclear power plants; the last 3 steps are the same in fossil-fuel-burning power plants, as is the waste of most of the heat.

In recent decades there have been many new reactor designs developed and tested, including ''thorium'' reactors (thorium has the pleasant features of being lavishly abundant and unusable for bombs), liquid salt reactors (where the heat is absorbed and the neutrons moderated by liquid salt that must be continuously pumped up from a reservoir in the basement; if the system fails, the moderation and the chain reaction stop) and "pebble bed" reactors, in which the fissionable "fuel" is in small "pebbles" rather than fuel "rods", making cooling simpler and allowing smaller ''local'' reactors, perhaps one per small town or neighbourhood. I am fond of a design which uses "extra" neutrons from a spallation source to keep an otherwise subcritical reaction going, because it incorporates a big accelerator that would also make lots of muons!   <tt>:-)</tt>

===== Safety =====
S

OFC Meeting 17

2022-09-23T18:19:09Z

WikiSysop:

OFC Meeting 17

2022-09-23T18:18:36Z

WikiSysop: Created page with "OFC Meetings --> here ---- <center> '''Aug 2019''': '''Jess''' on == ENERGY in the FUTURE == </center> No matter how determined we are to "''use it up; wear it out; make..."

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''Aug 2019''': '''Jess''' on
== ENERGY in the FUTURE ==
</center>

No matter how determined we are to "''use it up; wear it out; make it do; do without''", if we are going to ''have'' a future we are going to need a lot of '''power''' (energy per unit time) to solve the problems that ''must'' be solved -- like transportation of people and goods, provision of clean water and air, communication and computation. (''Alphabet'', Google's parent company, used an average of 0.65 billion watts of power in 2015. That's the output of a good-sized nuke.) We need ''more'' power, not ''less''. So where are we going to get it? Here (below Philip's comments) are a few possible topics; we certainly won't get to them all.

----

'''''Philip''''': To avoid the worst effects of global heating, the extraction and burning of all fossil fuels must be phased out (unless the CO2 is captured) over the next few decades starting ASAP. This means for example that all new tar sands development needs to be halted and production steadily cut back - fortunately investors are already acknowledging this. Also on the demand side, vehicles using fossil fuels need to be phased out (perhaps using high taxes) and replaced by battery electric and fuel cell powered vehicles, and buildings upgraded to zero net energy standards. Also of course coal and gas power plants (that do not capture CO2) must be replaced by renewable or nuclear power. Note that the Canadian government will require all coal power plants that do not capture CO2 to shut down by 2030.

----

=== NUCLEAR POWER ===

==== Fusion ====
Let's start at the beginning: '''''all''''' the energy we presently have access to comes from '''gravity''' and '''fusion'''. First gravity drew hydrogen together into ''stars'' and compressed it until it began to fuse into deuterium, helium, lithium and so on, up to iron, where fusion stops being exothermic. The older stars eventually burned out and collapsed under gravity until the electrons of atoms were pushed into the nuclei, turning protons into neutrons and electron neutrinos in catastrophic explosions called ''supernovas'', in which the plentiful extra neutrons made even heavier nuclei, including unstable elements like uranium. The clouds of debris drifted around for a while until gravity again caused them to collect into new stars like the Sun and planets like the Earth, where that stored fusion and gravitational energy is still being released in the Earth's core (and, incidentally, in human-made reactors).

Will we eventually be able to "harness" fusion directly to make electric power? Probably, someday; but IMNERHO it will not be a significant improvement over fission. Ask me why if you are interested; I won't use up space here on that issue.

==== Fission Reactor Designs ====
American nuclear reactors have been scaled-up versions of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover's design for the US Navy's submarines since 1955. The fission of U-235 or Pu-239 releases energy as (mainly) fast neutrons, which slow down by scattering in the pressurized water surrounding the reactor core and thereby deposit their energy as '''heat''' (''disordered'' energy) in the water, which boils to make ''steam'', which runs turbines to make electricity. Most of the energy produced is lost as waste heat. This basic process (fission --> neutrons --> heat --> heat engine --> electricity) is common to all nuclear power plants; the last 3 steps are the same in fossil-fuel-burning power plants, as is the waste of most of the heat.

In recent decades there have been many new reactor designs developed and tested, including ''thorium'' reactors (thorium has the pleasant features of being lavishly abundant and unusable for bombs), liquid salt reactors (where the heat is absorbed and the neutrons moderated by liquid salt that must be continuously pumped up from a reservoir in the basement; if the system fails, the moderation and the chain reaction stop) and "pebble bed" reactors, in which the fissionable "fuel" is in small "pebbles" rather than fuel "rods", making cooling simpler and allowing smaller ''local'' reactors, perhaps one per small town or neighbourhood. I am fond of a design which uses "extra" neutrons from a spallation source to keep an otherwise subcritical reaction going, because it incorporates a big accelerator that would also make lots of muons!   <tt>:-)</tt>

===== Safety =====
S

History of the OFC

2022-09-23T18:18:12Z

WikiSysop: /* History of the Oceanside Futurological Congress */

[[Oceanside Futurological Congress]] --> here
----

<center>
==History of the Oceanside Futurological Congress==
</center>
This group was originally formed of, by and for the participants in Jess Brewer's Elder College course "'''''[http://jick.net/futures Possible Futures]]'''''", held in the VIU classrom in the Parksville Community Center (above the Library). That course was just for fun (speculating about what the future might be like in several decades) but we opened more doors than we could explore, so we decided to continue on our own.

For two years we met from 2-4 PM on (unless otherwise specified) the '''second''' Tuesday of each month, starting on 13 Feb 2018, in the meeting room upstairs at the ''Qualicum Foods'' grocery store in (you guessed it) Qualicum Beach. (The first session on 16 Jan was at ''Serious Coffee'' located in south Parksville where Northwest Bay Road intersects the East Island Highway; but it was too noisy for a thoughtful discussion.)

We then were offered the Board Room at Qualicum Foods in (you guessed it) Qualicum Beach. It has no A/V facilities, but it has a nice big table with comfortable chairs, ideal for plain talk -- which turns out to be a pretty productive medium! See [[OFC Venue Options]].

On 08 Aug 2018 I disabled self-registration, following a flurry of new users with suspicious-looking email addresses (from which none of them have replied in response to gradually less welcoming greetings). If you want an account, ask [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com me] for one, sending me all your information by email. -- '''Jess'''

Then in March of 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic forced us into physical isolation, along with most of the world. But we were not to be diverted so easily from our discussions! Since then we have been meeting ''weekly'' using ''[http://zoom.us Zoom]''. The meetings have no longer been rigorously adhering to the format below, but we all have pretty good habits by now:

====Standard Agenda for Meetings====
* 2:00 Logistics
* 2:05 Presentation by Convener/Moderator (projector provided; BYO computer)
* 2:20 '''Free Discussion''' (No "monopolizing", please!)
* 2:50 Coffee (etc.) Break
* 3:00 '''Free Discussion''' (No "monopolizing", please!)
* 3:30 Summary & Conclusions (if any)
* 3:40 Selection of next month's Topic & Convener/Moderator
* 4:00 Adjourn (private discussions may continue)

[[OFC Meeting 1]] (16 Jan 2018 at Serious Coffee): FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS - [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess H. Brewer]

[[OFC Meeting 2]] (13 Feb 2018 at Qualicum Foods): PHILOSOPHY AND OUR FUTURE - [mailto:hwitmans@shaw.ca Hendrik Witmans]

[[OFC Meeting 3]] (13 Mar 2018 at Qualicum Foods): STUFF -
[mailto:2rolandu3@gmail.com Roland Uphoff] & [mailto:jane.juda@gmail.com Jane Juda]

[[OFC Meeting 4]] (10 Apr 2018 at Qualicum Foods): SENIORS - [mailto:kebarnes@shaw.ca Keith Barnes]

[[OFC Meeting 5]] (08 May 2018 at Qualicum Foods): BACK TO THE FUTURE -
[mailto:donthecoach@rogers.com Don Giberson]

[[OFC Meeting 6]] (12 June 2018 at Qualicum Foods): DEATH IN THE FUTURE -
[mailto:flyermanders@gmail.com Philip Manders]

[[OFC Meeting 7]] (10 July 2018 at Qualicum Foods): The FUTURE of TRANSPORTATION - [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess H. Brewer]

[[OFC Meeting 8]] (14 Aug 2018 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") about possible topics ''etc.''

[[OFC Meeting 9]] (11 Sep 2018 at Qualicum Foods): CHINA of the FUTURE -
[mailto:kebarnes@shaw.ca Keith Barnes]

[[OFC Meeting 10]] (09 Oct 2018 at Qualicum Foods): Toward a FUTURE MERITOCRACY -
[mailto:2rolandu3@gmail.com Roland Uphoff]

[[OFC Meeting 11]] (13 Nov 2018 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") about possible topics ''etc.''

[[OFC Meeting 12]] (11 Dec 2018 at Qualicum Foods): POPULATION and IMMIGRATION - [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess H. Brewer]

Meeting on 08 Jan 2019 ''cancelled'' due to possible icy roads.

Meeting on 12 Feb 2019 ''cancelled'' due to heavy snowfall.

[[OFC Meeting 13]] (12 Mar 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") about possible topics ''etc.''

[[OFC Meeting 14]] (09 Apr 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all") with an initial focus on Future Farming

Meeting on 14 May 2019 at Qualicum Foods: Informal Discussion between Hank & Keith on assorted topics (everyone else was away)

[[OFC Meeting 15]] (11 Jun 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Informal Discussion (a.k.a. "free-for-all")

[[OFC Meeting 16]] (09 Jul 2019 at Qualicum Foods): DEMOCRACY in the FUTURE -
[mailto:flyermanders@gmail.com Philip Manders] & free-for-all

[[OFC Meeting 17a]] (13 Aug 2019 at Qualicum Foods): ENERGY in the FUTURE - Another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 18]] (10 Sep 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Yet another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 19]] (08 Oct 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Yet another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 20]] (12 Nov 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Still another free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 21]] (10 Dec 2019 at Qualicum Foods): Starting a NEW free-for-all!

Meeting on 14 Jan 2020 ''cancelled'' due to heavy snowfall.

[[OFC Meeting 22]] (11 Feb 2020 at Qualicum Foods): Starting another new free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 23]] (10 Mar 2020 at Qualicum Foods): Another new free-for-all!

[[OFC Meeting 24]] (14 Apr 2020) will be held by videoconference ([http://zoom.us Zoom]) and '''on this wiki'''.

Subsequent meetings will be ''via'' [http://zoom.us Zoom] '''every''' Tuesday at 2 PM until further notice.

Obviously this "History" is incomplete and needs updating.

----

'''[[OFC EXTRAS]]: Spin-Offs, Notices, Polemics ''etc.'''''

OFC Meeting 20

2022-09-23T18:14:25Z

WikiSysop: Created page with "OFC Meetings --> here ---- <center> '''12 Nov 2019''': ===="Free-for-All" Discussions==== Feel free to add your thoughts here! You might want to revisit our previous "..."

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''12 Nov 2019''':
===="Free-for-All" Discussions====
Feel free to add your thoughts here!

You might want to revisit our previous "free-for-alls" to harvest some ideas.
</center>

===AGENDA ITEMS===

* '''Philip''': I suggest we discuss the proposition that Canada does not have to worry about our ecological footprint (''e.g.'' from food consumed in Canada and carbon emissions) or sustainability because our population is not large (only 0.5% of the world’s total population).
* '''Jess''' suggests having a look at [https://www.facebook.com/groups/BalancedBallotBerkeley/?multi_permalinks=761572120971304%2C759862251142291&notif_id=1570148116713998&notif_t=group_activity Balanced Ballot for Berkeley] and the whole idea of [http://free-ideas.org/pol/NegVote.html Negative Votes]. Perhaps one of these meetings should be devoted to "'''''Voting in the Future'''''"?
* Oct 7: Canadian physicist Jim Peebles shares Nobel prize in Physics for his work in physical cosmology. Here's a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvX4HWmpeS0 great interview]!
* You might be interested in a recent ''Scientific American'' article on [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/were-incentivizing-bad-science/?fbclid=IwAR15ELIlHd765Oytb6_xc6vr7LSqv_h8H53On0tz3EfOM9dVP0pxM6UNT4E Incentivizing Bad Science] (by which they mean, as is so often the case, ''Medical'' Science). See also my suggested remedy: [http://opeer.org|o'Peer]. Perhaps we might also have a session on '''''Science in the Future'''''!
* ''Re'' '''nuclear power''', see the influential pop song ''' [[POWER]]'''.

----

===MINUTES===

There was some discussion about [http://jick.ca/?p=157 QUANTITACY], [http://jick.ca/?p=30 Zero Tolerance] and [http://jick.net/skept/RadHaz/ Radiation Hazards] (for which there is also a [http://jick.net/skept/RadHaz/RadHaz_talk.key.pdf presentation version]). This segued into the usual far-reaching politico-philosophical discussions, including the Climate Crisis. Jess and Doug had to leave early, just after some discussion of the new medical database/pharmaceutical-dispensing project recently announced by a consortium of Amazon, Google and others: see the [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/12/google-medical-data-project-nightingale-secret-transfer-us-health-information article in the Guardian].

History of the OFC

2022-09-23T18:07:47Z

WikiSysop: /* Standard Agenda for Meetings */

OFC Meeting 1

2022-09-23T18:07:09Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''16 Jan 2018''':
===FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS===
'''Jess'''
</center>

Some questions we might try to answer include:

* How mobile will people be in 20 years?
* Which people?
* What will be the effects of such mobility?
* Where will most of them live in 20 years?
* Where will Canadian immigrants come from?
* Where will Canadian emigrants (if any) go?
* How many people can Canada hold?
* What would be the ideal number of Canadians?
* How many people can the Earth hold?
* What would be the ''ideal'' number of humans on Earth?
* What will be the number of ''robots'' per person?
* What will the ''age'' distribution look like in 20 years?
* How old can we ''get''?
* How old do you ''want'' to get?
* Will we just upload into Virtual Reality?

Some possible sources of ideas and information on this subject:

* ''The Limits to Growth'' (classic 1972 book whose gloomy predictions have been largely borne out)
* ''The Population Bomb'' by Paul & Anne Ehrlich in 1968, predicting catastrophes that have '''not''' happened.
* The ''[http://www.gapminder.org Gapminder World]'' website, which explains why they haven't & probably won't. (See especially the video entitled "DON'T PANIC: The Facts About Population".)

===MINUTES of MEETING===

The first meeting was difficult. First Jess was unable to get hooked up to the TV to show his prepared computer presentation, then we found that the "private" meeting room at Serious Coffee is actually an echo chamber for the rest of the restaurant, so only the very loud of voice were able to make themselves heard. That venue is clearly unacceptable, so Keith Barnes has reserved the ''Qualicum Foods boardroom'' for us, which will require shifting to the ''second'' Tuesday of each month. See '''[[OFC Venue Options]]'''.

==== COMMENTS on the FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS discussion: ====

It was generally agreed that Hans Rosling is a bit of a Pollyanna with his predictions that the "Population Bomb" has been defused by prosperity and drastically reduced infant mortality. Still, there may be room for hope. Jess thinks that Rosling's main purpose is to counter the broad consensus that since we're doomed no matter what we do, there's no point in trying to act more responsibly.

A lively discussion of the consequences of a plague wiping out 90% of humanity reached an impasse over the issue of whether the remaining people would just crank their birth rate back up to 5 or 7 children per woman, or responsibly enjoy the benefits of a more sustainable population.

Added by Philip: To go to the facebook page on population hosted by Don White of Nanaimo -- search on facebook for "7 Billion and You".

That would be at [https://www.facebook.com/groups/528944993833059/about/ 7 Billion and You], in case you want a direct link.

===== Next Meeting: =====

Hendrik Witmans has [been] volunteered to introduce and moderate a discussion of "'''''Philosophy and our Future'''''" for our next meeting. This may be a more academic-sounding topic, but after all, everything else we do is either motivated or informed by Philosophy, so we'd better get ''that'' straight first!

The ''date'' of the next meeting is Tuesday 13 Feb 2018 in the ''Qualicum Foods'' boardroom (up two flights of stairs from the grocery floor) from 2-4 PM.

OFC Meeting 2

2022-09-23T18:06:40Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''13 Feb 2018''':
=== PHILOSOPHY and our FUTURE ===
'''Hendrik Witmans'''
</center>

Hello everyone,

I'm Hendrik Witmans, your host and moderator for next Tuesday's meeting at Quality Foods about Philosophy and our Future. For those of you who haven't met me at class or the last meeting, I am a science fiction writer, greatly interested, and worried, about our future. Jess has asked me to write something about the meeting on Wiki, and it has taken me all this time to figure out how this site works.

I am certainly not going to post the complete presentation ahead of time. If I did, nobody would show up! I will put it up afterwards, though, for the people who missed the meeting. Here's a hint.

Don't expect a scientific lecture with graphs, photos and documentation. This will just be a plain, common sense discussion about how quantum physics is changing what we have taken for granted all our lives. This change will shake our perception of reality to the core. We may not like it, but it is coming, as more and more people are "waking up".

It is a fairly short presentation, and there will be plenty of time for everyone to discuss, refute, argue, or even ridicule the point I'm going to make. It will also be an opportunity to discuss how we can use these new ideas in our daily lives to create a better future.

Hope this gave you an idea about what to expect, and see you next Tuesday!

====== BODY OF PRESENTATION ======

(Hendrik, this space is for you. Just add whatever you want -- your written talk if you like -- and then delete this comment.)

====== DISCUSSION ======

'''Please put your comments here!'''

''Jess'': The Board room at Qualicum Foods is '''wonderful'''! Big comfortable office chairs, good coffee and food right down the hall and through a door, ''quiet'' except for the occasional announcement. And no A/V gadgets to distract from genuine F2F discussion. Yea! We had 7 people at this meeting, which is a nice number for freewheeling discussions, but I hope it doesn't fall off much.

OFC Meeting 3

2022-09-23T18:06:13Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''13 Mar 2018''':
===STUFF===
</center>

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac Stuff happens!] (I couldn't resist! -- '''Jess''')

(Ah, another angle -- '''Jane''')

This video by George Carlin (click on Stuff Happens) holds a mirror up to society -- and makes us consciously think about our possessions -- our STUFF....

'''Roland''''s rejoinder:

Carlin makes several valid points in his "Rant" about STUFF. However, he has only focused on some of the negative aspects of our relationship with our possessions.

His approach is to draw our attention to some of our excesses -- and yes, it's true for most of us reading this -- we could probably do with less STUFF and perhaps we should all examine our attitude about STUFF.

However -- Mr. Carlin does not paint a complete picture here. STUFF can have a very positive impact on our lives as well.

The value of over 70% of the U.S. economy is made up of Consumer Goods. Now, that includes food and necessities as well, but a lot of it is simply STUFF. If we all decide to buy less STUFF, we will definitely slow down the economy. Some may say, "Good -- only the rich will suffer," but that is simply not the case. A slowing economy could upset credit markets worldwide -- possibly creating a crash to rival the Great Depression on a global scale.

The answer to that problem may be to increase the amount of Services that we exchange with each other. That way the velocity of money would stay the same and credit markets would not lock up.

Perhaps (as a society) we have become too dependent on STUFF to give us Joy and Fulfillment in our lives. There are heirlooms and mementos that we cherish because they hold great sentimental value -- and when you come home from a long trip, isn't it nice to walk into your home and be back with all your familiar STUFF. Hotels are nice, but it's just not the same when it's not YOUR STUFF in the room.

Stuff can give you a sense of STATUS. A big home filled with a lot of expensive STUFF can make you feel secure and powerful -- and it lets your guests know immediately that you are "a person of wealth and taste". A big empty house simply wouldn't do that....

''Cars'' make excellent status symbols as well -- when you see a Rolls Royce or Ferrari you know instantly that the person who owns it has high social status. Certain car makers market their products to people who want a car that says "Successful -- High Status" and that most people will recognize as being transportation for the "elite".

It has been said that "Clothes make the Man" (or Woman) -- and dressing up in fine clothes does make us feel special. We even have special clothing (wedding dresses, prom dresses, tuxedos) that are usually only worn once.
Fashion tells us that we must have the latest style or we will fail to live up to society's norms of sophistication and success.

Fashion has crept into things like home appliances (of all things) and housing as well. People will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to give their house a "fresh updated look" -- but where does all the old flooring, gyprock, light fixtures, kitchen cupboards, vanities, sinks ''etc.'' '''go'''? Into the landfill.

Of course -- there is also ''essential'' STUFF that we all need to function in our daily lives, and no one would expect anyone to give that up. BUT -- most of us have STUFF that we simply don't need or don't use. Most of that STUFF ends up in landfills -- although there has been a movement toward recycling and re-using the STUFF we no longer need.

[Remark by '''Jess''' from Mexico: Here they do not recycle, they "repurpose". You'd be amazed how many uses there are for an old plastic bottle! However, plastic bags and other trash are just discarded, and pile up everywhere. Especially in the ocean. :-( ]

In Nanaimo we are having a great debate about the Nanaimo Recycling Exchange (NRE). The NRE is going to be losing their facility soon and are looking for public funds to replace and improve it. If you've ever gone there -- it is a VERY well used facility and in my opinion, much needed by the people of Nanaimo, but local governments are reluctant to shell out significant taxpayer funds for it. The NRE are proposing a membership drive to raise $!00,00
toward a new facility, to make up for the lack of government enthusiasm for recycling. Where are our priorities?
If we are going to keep consuming STUFF -- can't we at least try to make it more environmentally sustainable?

"Let's stop being full time Consumers - and part time Citizens". -- ''Roland Uphoff''

More from '''Roland''':

Lets reexamine our relationship with stuff. To me, STUFF falls into three distinct categories:

First we have things that are ''necessary'' in our daily lives and for the proper functioning of our society. Let's just put them aside for now.

Second we have ''TREASURES''. We all have them -- some have more than others but even a homeless person has things they don't want to part with. For millennia people have had treasures -- ancient burial grounds often have primitive jewelry or figurines in them. Pharaohs were buried with their treasures. Treasure was so desirable that men would go on raids and start wars over them. The Mongols, Vikings and Huns are a few examples of people willing to die to get at someone's treasure. Treasure has had a powerful hold on people's psyches for thousands of years. A long discussion could be had just talking about people's fascination with treasure, but for now we will leave that aside as well... which leads us to the third form of STUFF:

The third form of STUFF is stuff we really ''don't need'' -- stuff we bought on a whim -- stuff we got because it was a fad or fashion at the time -- stuff we really wanted, but lost interest in -- stuff we got from someone as a gift because they felt obligated to get us something... ''anything''.

I'm sure that we could all add a lot to the this third list -- but now we are going to bundle all this STUFF up and see what happens to it. Some STUFF is donated to charity, and some of that is reused. Some STUFF gets sold on Used Nanaimo or Kijiji or CraigsList and is reused. But ''most'' of it simply ends up in the landfill. Most of us would agree that filling up landfills is not a positive thing now -- or for the future.

So -- if what we are doing with STUFF is undesirable, perhaps we should examine ways to reduce our consumption and the waste that goes with it.

[Comment from '''Jess''': What happened to the fourth type of stuff you so eloquently defended earlier: stuff that makes you feel proudly superior -- ''elite'' -- and makes others feel inadequate by comparison? You seem to have backed away from that position here. Just sayin'. ;-) ]

Fads and Fashion are a great way to ensure that our garbage dumps will always be overflowing. Where did they come from? For most of human history the 99% could afford only the basic necessities, with an occasional treasure. Then came the Industrial Revolution in the 1700's in Great Britain - soon to be followed by the rest of the world. Goods became cheaper and much more plentiful. STUFF became available to the common man (or woman). As production ramped up, much more STUFF became available. A lot of it was necessary stuff that made life less difficult; but then something changed. The factories didn't stop producing when everyone had their share of necessary things -- so MARKETING was born. Now people had to be convinced to buy stuff they didn't even know they needed. Fads and fashions came and went and marketers began to convince people -- through an ever expanding media presence -- that they simply MUST have the latest and greatest thing or be a social outcast.

I will give two examples that come to mind. In the late 1800's a large quantity of high quality diamonds were discovered in South Africa. There were many more diamonds than the market could use. SO the largest diamond company in the world (DeBeers) had to find a way to sell all the excess diamonds. They turned to a very clever marketer who started an ad campaign that convinced every potential bride that she MUST have a diamond ring (or her suitor didn't love her). ''Voila''! Debeers had no problem selling all their diamonds for massively marked up prices.

The second example is automobile marketing. In 1923 Chevrolet made some minor styling changes to the 1922 model and introduced the 1923 Chevrolet as the "All New 1923 Chevrolet". Before this, cars were not identified specifically by model year - but Chevrolet convinced people that they couldn't be seen driving "last year's" model; and soon every other automobile manufacturer started using the same marketing tactic. Styling changes became dramatic -- so it was easy to distinguish one vintage from another. Now your neighbors could see if you were "keeping up".

Marketing is something that has not always served the greatest needs of mankind. In fact, some would argue that it has had a negative influence on us. Marketing is often at the root of fads and fashions and also in excessive consumerism. Perhaps we should take another look at how we are influenced by marketing. Do we really need all that new STUFF that they tell us to buy? Is there a better way? -- ''Roland Uphoff''

Comment from '''Jess''': If you have not been following [http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence Terry o'Reilly's "Under The Influence"]] series on CBC, you've missed a gold mine of information about the shenanigans of ''advertising''. You can catch up with the [http://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/arts-culture/under-the-influence/ podcasts here]. I invite everyone to join me in the '''Consumer's Pledge''': "''I will never buy anything for which I've seen an unsolicited advertisement''." That may seem radical, but I think it's the only way to really hamstring the manipulators. It goes well with the '''Voter's Pledge''': "''I will never vote for a candidate for whom I've seen a paid campaign ad''." :-)

[Comment from '''Philip''' (Mar 2, 2018): Yes, all three things we can do about Stuff, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle are important but Reduce is most important I think because it also reduces the burden of protecting, storing, learning to use and ultimately recycling the stuff. It is also for a society the best way to reduce the burden on the planet and to provide every person more time to do the things that are important to them rather than having to work in a possibly soul-crushing job and having to deal with their stuff. Let us aim for the 15 hour work week promised by John Maynard Keynes in his essay “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”.]

'''Jane Juda''''s opinion:

Stuff... emotions... environment

My view is that stuff is not necessary. We can live without it. We are brainwashed into thinking we need it and media and marketing make temptation irresistible on many levels. The sad thing is that people go into debt thinking it will improve them or make them happier. This is where the emotions kick in. It will not. The sadder thing is that all the stuff that is being created will end up in the earth. Is this good for our planet?

If by some disastrous fluke you end up losing all your stuff by an act of God, you can still live without it. You will not die if you do not have stuff. Oh, of course, you will grieve and lament your loss but you can go on living without your stuff.

Stuff is a ball and chain. Until you let go of your stuff you are its custodian for the rest of your life.

''''Wealth consists not in having great possessions but in having few wants'''.' - ''Epictetus''

I am trying to be a minimalist. Not quite there yet, but I have downsized many times. I'm presently living in approximately 600 square feet and still feel I have too much. Trying to get to the point of only owning what I currently use. I still have stuff, like my camping gear (I did a lot of canoeing in Ontario trying to retrieve my sanity in nature before heading back to the City and the financial district). Will I go camping again? Only went once last year. Sleeping on the hard ground, in the rain, is becoming less and less appealing. So why am I not getting rid of camping gear that is probably superseded by current technology, you ask? Ah, that's Roland's department. :-)

[Image:iphone.jpg|600px]

And that is my view on stuff. -- '''Jane'''

Thoughts about stuff from '''Hendrik Witmans''':

Just my few cents' worth on the upcoming meeting on Stuff. Reading through Roland's bit, I cringed at some of what he said: Stuff a status symbol? Keeping up with the Jones ''etc. etc''? I don't think so! Anyway, more about that on the next meeting, for sure. For now I would like to bring your attention to a short movie about “stuff”. I think it should be required viewing at every high school or college!

The movie is: "[https://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff The Story of Stuff]" at [https://storyofstuff.org The Story of Stuff Project].

You have to navigate through the movie menus until you find the one called: ''Story of Stuff''. It explains the dark side of our obsession with 'stuff'. I thought it was very good. That's it from me. -- '''Henk'''

More Commentary from '''Roland''':

Henk: Thank you for putting your ideas on the wiki -- I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts at the next meeting and I am sure there will be a lively discussion.

Jane: Thank you for your thoughts on STUFF, as well as the lifestyle of minimalism. Minimalism may well be the way of the future, and I hope we spend some time discussing this important topic.

As most of you are probably aware, my views are different from those of Jane and Henk. I don't consider myself an extreme consumer, hoarder or great status seeker, but I do like stuff more than some people.

During the past few weeks I have been thinking a lot about STUFF and I have come to realize that stuff definitely has a downside (as Henk mentioned) but we must start looking at ways to make stuff friendlier to the environment and the marketers should take a step back (in the future) and stop promoting consumerism as a quasi-religion.

Corporations have a vital role to play as well. We need to go BEYOND Reuse, Recycle, Reduce -- what we need is to Re-Design and Build Better.... We need better designed stuff that will last longer and can be easily repaired. Think of the mufflers you used to have on your car 40 years ago -- they used to rust out all the time. Now we use stainless steel and aluminum for our exhaust and my 32 year old car still has its original muffler. So you see, we '''can''' do better. We don't have to dump all our old stuff in the environment if we don't need to constantly change it. Some stuff is actually ''built'' to FAIL -- it is known as Planned Obsolescence. I consider this kind of thinking to be criminal. I believe that most people would agree that planned obsolescence should be '''outlawed'''! To me it is a fraud committed on the consumer and a crime against the Earth itself. Corporations need to ''change'' in the future.

Attitudes toward marketing can change as well. Marketers used to tell you how most Medical Doctors preferred Camel cigarettes. Attitudes toward smoking changed, and the public convinced the marketers to publish anti-smoking ads.
Perhaps we can change our minds about other things as well. Perhaps in the future, we will put more thought into the stuff we buy and think about WHY we are buying this stuff. Do we really ''need'' it, or are we buying something because we have been manipulated into buying it (fad, fashion, marketing) or because we feel insecure and need it to show our status to the world. Let's make ''better'' decisions in the future.

Lets spend a little more time in the future thinking about the ''consequences'' of STUFF. The debt traps that we fall into when we buy luxuries on credit -- or the environmental damage done by over-consumption. I still love stuff, but I am willing to have a dialogue with the other members of the O.F.C. about how I can still love stuff, but perhaps in a more responsible way. -- '''Roland'''

Last minute addendum from '''Jess''':

I feel like we should have some nice '''pro'''-consumerism links in addition to Roland's comments, to even out the references. Here are a few that seemed interesting to me:
# "[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/style/in-defense-of-our-wicked-wicked-ways.html In Defense of our Wicked, Wicked Ways]" by Patricia Cohen of The New York Times (2002)
# "[https://mises.org/library/defense-consumerism In Defense of Consumerism]" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. of the Mises Institute (2006)
# "[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-defense-of-consumerism/article/2558755 In Defense of Consumerism]" by Dan Hannan in the Washington Examiner (2015)

I don't think these links make many ''new'' points, but they make the old ones fairly eloquently. To me, it boils down to privileged people complaining about humourless PC Police trying to spoil their fun just because it will eventually spell the collapse of human civilization. :-) -- '''Jess'''

----
[[Minutes of Third OFC Meeting]]
----

OFC Meeting 4

2022-09-23T18:05:43Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''10 Apr 2018''':
=== SENIORS: Who Will Take Care of Us? ===
====The Future of Health and Social Care for Seniors in 2040====
'''Keith'''
</center>

==== OUTLINE ====

'''Population''': The Impending Tsunami!

'''The Major Problems of Aging''': Physical, Social and Mental.

'''Models of Care''': Past, Present and Future.

'''Group Discussion'''

==== Addenda ====

I have a couple of open questions to ask at the meeting:

# What does respect for human life mean other than the maximizing of lifespan?

# How do we balance the needs of the individual and society as the costs of health care increase?

-- '''Philip'''

----

==== MINUTES ====

Notes by '''Philip''':

Keith opened with comments on the coming tsunami of seniors -- it is forecast that in B.C. the number of people over 75 will approximately triple by 2035. He then talked about the structure of residential care. Before 1970 this mostly consisted of unlicensed private boarding houses. This has evolved over the years to three levels of residential care in a mixture of private (though mostly publicly funded) and public facilities: complex, dementia and extended care. 80% of a resident's income up to a maximum of $35,000 is taken to pay for the care. Most residents are older than 85. Isolation and a lack of stimulation are common problems. Alternate models elsewhere include groups of houses with perhaps only six residents plus care workers per house in Scandinavia and neighbourhood watch systems in Japan.

In the discussion we talked about cost, medically assisted death, finding meaning at each stage of life, new models of care such as multi-generational communities (takes a village to look after an old person), and the moral obligations we have.

The cost of care is a large inter-generational transfer of wealth and unless things change this will become much more significant in the future. Money spent on old people is not available for children. New taxes that fund future care, as opposed to pay-as-you-go taxes, robots and a return to more family provided care (with more financial support) are possible solutions. Another is to provide easier to obtain medically assisted death for those who have truly lost the joys of life (don't just have depression) -- though it is not socially acceptable to talk about this in terms of cost savings -- perhaps it is better to frame this as a question of freedom and respect for the individual.

As Ken pointed out, families are judged on their care of their older members -- like the moving to a residential care facility being labelled as "dumping grandma". However the care required can be very onerous for the family - often a 24 hour, 7 day a week obligation. We can always volunteer to do things like spending time with older people. Don pointed out that most people at the table are probably already doing some volunteer work of some sort now. Also volunteers may take jobs away from people who need them.

A couple of participants pointed out that lacking meaning is a problem for every age group. I would add that making meaning for ourselves is an important obligation for all of us. It is one task that cannot be given over to others.

OFC Meeting 5

2022-09-23T18:05:02Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''08 May 2018''': '''''Don Giberson''''' presents...
===BACK TO THE FUTURE:===
====How We Can Address Four of Our Biggest Global Challenges====
</center>
We are living in very challenging times. There are 4 major issues that pose serious threats not only to our way of life, but to our very existence. In this presentation, I would like to offer two possible solutions that, together, address all 4 of these major issues.

We are facing a number of major issues today. These are sometimes referred to as the E4 Crises: Energy, Economy, Ecology and Equity. Let’s briefly look at each of these.

====Global Crisis #1: Energy====

Energy is everything: nothing happens without energy. It is the foundation of life.

For most of our time on earth, our energy came from human or animal muscle power or from the sun, wind or water. These forms of energy were limited, which, in turn, limited the amount of work we could perform. But that all changed when we discovered fossil fuels. Oil, coal and natural gas are all amazing discoveries: they are incredibly concentrated forms of energy, they are portable (so we can move them from where they are found to where they are needed), they have been abundant and they have been cheap.

Let’s say your car gets 30 mpg. Then one gallon of gas will propel your car 30 miles; and will probably do so in less than 30 minutes. And that gallon of gas cost you less than $6.00. Now imagine pushing that car 30 miles: how long would it take you, how much energy would you use and how much would it cost you in food to generate that energy? What if you wanted to pull the car with a couple of horses? Again, imagine how long it would take, how much energy would be needed and what it would cost. So fossil fuels really have been an amazing discovery. Not surprisingly, we have used them as much as possible. We use them to power our cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, ships, tractors and all kinds of other machines. We use them to heat our homes and generate our electricity. We use them to produce steel, concrete and other energy-intensive materials. We use them to grow our food, mine for minerals and metals, produce goods and services, and to transport those goods and services around the world. We use them in plastics, cosmetics and numerous other products. We have built an entire global, interconnected economy on the back of cheap fossil fuels.

But there is one B-I-G problem; and it rarely gets mentioned in the mainstream media. And that problem is: Peak Oil. Peak Oil is defined as: “the point when further expansion of oil production becomes impossible because new production flows are fully offset by production declines.” Most indicators suggest that we have already reached this point and that we are on the downward curve of oil supply. One example: global oil production has basically flat-lined since 2005. In other words, we are starting to run out of oil. Although we are still discovering new sources of oil, these new sources are usually smaller in size (quantity) or poorer in quality than those they need to replace. One indicator of this is EROEI: Energy Return on Energy Invested. EROEI is calculated by dividing energy delivered by the energy required to deliver that energy. In 1930, the EROEI was 100:1; one barrel of oil spent on oil production resulted in 100 barrels of oil produced. By 1970, that had declined to 30:1. By 2005 it was down to 15:1. It is now around 10:1 to 5:1 and continues to decline. This means more and more of the limited amount of oil remaining is going into oil production and energy output is declining.

However, these lower EROEIs are still higher than many proposed alternatives: solar collectors, solar flat plates, bitumen tar sands oil, biodiesel, corn ethanol, sugar cane ethanol and shale oil all have an EROEI of 5:1 or less. Photovoltaics have an EROEI of 6.8:1, geothermal without hot water heating is 9.5:1, wind is 18:1, CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) Electric is 19:1, geothermal with hot water heating is 32:1, hydro is 100:1 and nuclear is 105:1. Hydro and nuclear both have high EROEIs but most potential hydro sites have already been developed and nuclear is very expensive and carries significant environmental concerns. Coal has an EROEI of 80:1, is abundant and is fairly cheap; which explains why it is a preferred energy source for many developing countries. However, burning coal carries significant environmental consequences. Unfortunately, except for coal, there are few alternatives to oil that produce anywhere near the same energy return. This means we are ultimately heading towards a lower energy future; which has huge implications for our high-energy globally interconnected and interdependent world.

====Global Crisis #2: Economy====

The discovery of oil, coal and natural gas unleashed an energy revolution. We built machines to run on these fossil fuels and these machines could do far more work than could be done previously with human, animal, solar, wind or water power. Productivity skyrocketed and economies grew: it was a heady period of expansion and growth.

But we reached a point of over-production: we were producing more than we needed. This led to the Great Depression of 1929. To solve the problem of overproduction, we developed the ideas of consumerism and economic growth; which were promoted through advertising and supported by the availability of credit. This was further driven through globalization, trade, cheap oil and a global financial system; factors which allowed large corporations to scour the globe in search of the lowest priced energy, labour and resources. So we have built an entire global economy driven by consumerism and perpetual economic growth that is heavily dependent on cheap energy to keep it all going.

But as we have already seen, the cheap oil is running out and increasing demand and decreasing supplies will drive oil prices up dramatically. This will lead to a major global economic contraction. When oil prices spiked in the 1970s, the U.S. economy went into a recession.

As author Richard Heinberg points out: “Oil has become the world’s foremost energy resource. There is no ready substitute and decades will be required to wean societies from it. Peak oil could therefore constitute the greatest economic challenge since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution”.

====Global Crisis #3: Ecology/Environment====

The third crises we need to face and address is ecological: we are living beyond the earth’s carrying capacity. We depend on nature for the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Nature provides the materials to build our homes and to heat and cool them. Every manufactured good uses minerals, metals or other materials that come from nature. We depend on nature for our very survival; yet we are rapidly depleting many of the planet’s non-renewable resources and we are using up many of the planet’s renewable resources (such as fish and forests) faster than nature can replenish them. Species extinction, loss of biodiversity, acidification of the oceans, pollution, and climate change are other major ecological issues caused by our consumerist culture.

There are two main factors driving the depletion of the earth’s resources: population growth and consumerism under the guise of perpetual economic growth. There are about 7.5 billion people on the planet and that number is growing at about 1% per year. 1% doesn’t sound like much but a 1% growth rate means that the world’s population would double to 15 billion in just 70 years. We are adding about 80 million more people each year (net births minus deaths). That’s 80 million more people each year who need food, water, clothing and shelter.

The other main driver of resource depletion is the pursuit of global economic growth. Perpetual growth on a finite planet is simply not possible. To illustrate this, consider the following example. Let’s say the global economy is using 1/8 of the world’s resources and we want to maintain global economic growth of 3%. How long would it take before we overwhelm the earth’s carrying capacity? The answer is: just 69 years. At a 3% growth rate, the economy would double every 23 years. That means that in 23 years the economy would double and we would go from using 1/8 to 2/8 of the earth’s resources. In another 23 years, the global economy would double again and we would be using 4/8 of the earth’s resources. Another 23 years, only 69 years in total, and the global economy would be using 8/8 or all of the earth’s resources. We have been pushing the idea of global economic growth for almost a century now; and the Global Footprint Network calculates that we are using 12/8 of the world’s resources; we are actually exceeding the earth’s carrying capacity. The global economy has gotten too big and we are depleting many of the planet’s resources that we depend on for our survival. We are killing the golden goose.

This explains why physicist Albert Bartlett has said “The greatest failing of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

====Global Crisis #4: Equity====

The fourth crisis we need to address is the equity crisis. Income inequality has grown steadily over the past few decades. The promotion of consumerism and the ready availability of credit led many people into debt. Wealth flowed from borrowers to lenders, concentrating wealth and growing income inequality. The wealthy used their money and influence to shape public policies which and become even richer. The same thing happened globally; with “wealthy” nations becoming wealthier and “poor” nations becoming poorer. Today, the 300 wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion combined!

The wealthy have also grown their wealth by expropriating the commons. "The Commons" refers to the cultural and natural resources that are accessible to all members of society and not privately owned. In our earlier agrarian societies, many people shared food and resources and had a shared interest in preserving them. Beginning in the Middle Ages, the wealthy began expropriating the commons and could defend their seizures. This privatization of the commons has continued to the present and claims much of the world. Correcting inequality will require reclaiming and expanding the commons once more.

The growth of the corporation, with the emphasis on profit, has also concentrated wealth. Today, if we rank countries by GDP and corporations by revenues, 48 of the largest “economies” would be corporations! So correcting inequality may require new forms of business and ownership. There are many alternatives: cooperatives, B Corps (Benefit Corporations), Social Enterprises, etc. Or perhaps we change the corporate laws to shift the goal from profit to the triple bottom line: profit, people AND planet.

The World Bank says that “economic growth is the essential ingredient for sustained poverty reduction.” But the statistics prove this wrong. The global economy has increased 25 fold over the past century yet more than 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day. For every $100 of global economic growth that occurred between 1990 and 2001, only 60 cents went to people below the $1-a-day line. In other words, to get the poorest people an extra $1 required a $166 increase in global production. Someone is profiting off economic growth but it is not the world’s poor.

This is also true in the wealthier nations, with economic benefits increasingly flowing to the wealthiest individuals. For instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, top corporate executives in the U.S. took home 25 to 30 times the income of typical workers. In 1980, CEOs earned 40 times more than workers. By 1990, the gap had widened to 100 times. And in 2007 the difference was an astonishing 350 times. More and more wealth is concentrating at the top of the economic pyramid. And this is occurring in most developed countries, not just the U.S.

Income inequality is a slow-burning powder-keg that threatens to explode if we don’t tackle it. And numerous studies have shown that improving equity has numerous and far-reaching benefits:

* People enjoy better health and longer life expectancy
* Fewer citizens develop drug addictions
* People are less victimized by violence
* Birth rates among teenage girls is lower
* Children experience higher levels of well-being
* The rate of obesity declines
* Mental illness is less common
* Fewer people end up in prison
* Opportunities for social mobility are more widespread

These are worthy benefits that justify a determined pursuit of equity.

====Two Solutions to Our Four Global Crises====

The E4 Crises of Energy, Economy, Ecology and Equity are major challenges and, as we have seen, they are all closely inter-related. Tackling any one, without understanding and addressing this interconnectivity, will have limited impact.

With this in mind, here are two “big ideas” that, together, could go a long ways to addressing all four of these issues: Community Resilience (or Relocalization) and a Steady State Economy.

Let's look at each of these briefly.

====Community Resilience====

The above E4 Crises are likely to produce significant global shock waves that will ripple across the planet right down to our local communities. We need to identify these potential shocks and develop strategies to address them.

That is the idea behind Community Resilience. Community Resilience refers to a community’s ability to adapt to and bounce back from shocks and disruptions. It is a community-based, people-driven, solutions-oriented approach to finding workable solutions to global problems at the local level.

One of the main strategies for developing community resilience is relocalization: the idea that a community should produce locally as much of its essential needs as possible. This is done to reduce reliance and dependency on vulnerable global systems (transportation, food, energy. finance, etc.).

This includes such initiatives as:
* local food (meeting food needs from local food sources as much as possible)
* local energy (decentralized, locally owned power systems as opposed to large scale centralized energy grids)
* local economies (more local businesses and fewer large multi-national chains)
* local housing (building homes using local building supplies)
* local business exchanges and cooperatives
* local currencies (to reduce the outflow of capital from a community)
* local education
* local medicine/health (for example: developing local medicines to reduce dependency on foreign drugs)

Community Resilience does not oppose trade, but seeks to provide as much of the community's needs locally/regionally as possible and then to rely on trade for what cannot be provided locally/regionally.

It should also be noted that this presentation uses the word "relocalization" instead of "localization" because this is how we humans have lived for most of our time on earth. It is only over the last 200 years or so, with the discovery of cheap fossil fuels and the adoption of consumerism, economic growth and globalization that we have moved away from these strategies.

In the "old days" of trains and steamships, it was very expensive to transport things over long distances.
Usually only the very wealthy were able to afford to import things; especially if they were heavy.
So things were produced locally as much as possible.

Community Resilience or releocalization is a big "Back To The Future" idea that addresses all 4 of the crises described above.

====Steady State Economy====

Another big idea that also addresses all 4 crises is the concept of a Steady State Economy.

A Steady State Economy is defined as an economy that aims to maintain a stable population and a stable and sustainable level of resource consumption. It’s an economy in which material and energy use are kept within ecological limits, and in which the goal of MORE (economic growth or increasing GDP) is replaced by the goal of BETTER (improving quality of life).

Our global economy is a human invention. We created it; and we can change it. It is possible To create a global Steady State Economy (SSE).

How would we get to a Steady State Economy? Consider a diagram with Size of the Economy on the vertical-axis (too small, optimal and too large); and Resource Use on horizontal-axis (increasing, stable, decreasing). This would produce four quadrants and each nation’s path to a SSE would depend on its starting point:

* A nation in Quadrant 1 (Undesirable Growth) has an economy that is consuming too many resources and its resource use is still increasing. Degrowth is necessary before this nation can achieve a steady state.
* A nation in Quadrant 2 (Desirable Degrowth) has an economy that is still consuming too many resources but its resource use is declining; it needs to continue its path of degrowth.
* A nation in Quadrant 3 (Undesirable Degrowth) has an economy that is too small and is shrinking; so it needs to pursue a policy of growth to get to a steady state.
* A nation that is in Quadrant 4 (Desirable Growth) is increasing its use of resources but its resource use is still below a stable level; this nation can continue to grow until it reaches a steady state.

It is worth noting that the idea of a Steady State Economy does not preclude the possibility of growth; but it limits growth to those nations whose economies have not reached optimal size and whose resource use is still below sustainable levels.

This is a fair, balanced and sustainable approach to the global economy. Developed nations have about 16% of the world’s population but they account for about 78% of the global consumption expenditures. Such nations can adopt a policy of degrowth, bringing their economies into line with their country’s ecological limits, and still meet the needs of their citizens.

On the other hand, 40% of the world’s population struggles to subsist on less than $2 per day. Clearly, these nations need to grow their economy to better meet the needs of their citizens.

The Steady State Economy does not advocate blanket global economic growth for everyone (which is not sustainable) but allows for economic growth for those who truly need it.

So what would a Steady State Economy look like?

The goal of a SSE would be sustainable and equitable human well-being (BETTER, not MORE).

The foundation of a SSE would be based on 4 key building blocks:
* Sustainable scale (material and energy use are stabilized and kept within ecological limits)
* Fair distribution (inequality is reduced; people have equal opportunities for wealth/income)
* Efficient allocation (resources are efficiently allocated among competing interests through markets and other means when markets don’t work)
* High quality of life (GDP growth takes a back seat to what really matters to most people: health, happiness, secure employment, leisure time, strong communities and economic stability)

How do we get there from here? To move to a SSE, we will need to:
* Limit resource use and waste production
* Stabilize population
* Distribute income and wealth equitably
* Reform monetary and financial systems
* Change the way we measure progress
* Secure full employment
* Rethink how businesses create value
* Replace the culture of consumerism with a culture of sustainability
* Stimulate political debate and media coverage of the limits to growth and the steady-state alternative
* Change national goals regarding growth and improve international cooperation

The above is not a radical idea; it describes how we have lived on this planet for most of our existence. Earlier agrarian economies had many of the features of a Steady State Economy described above.

Remember: the global economy is a human invention. We created it. This means we can re-create it. We can abandon the unsustainable ideas of consumerism and perpetual economic growth and create a global Steady State Economy that is fairer, more balanced, sustainable and equitable.

Isn't that a goal worth pursuing?

====Back to the Future====

In the future, we may "go back" to the way we ''used'' to do certain things.

In his book, '''The Retro Future''', John Michael Greer suggests an approach many people would find unthinkable: deliberate technological regression as public policy.

Much of today's "progress" has reached the point of "diminishing returns": is the latest technology (cellphone, television, automobile, etc.) really that much better than yesterday's model?
In most cases the answer is no; yet we continue to use up valuable resources producing these "new but not improved" products.

Greer argues that there are many "older" technologies that work as well or better than current technologies; and many use far fewer resources and are thus more sustainable.

We live on a finite planet and most of the planet's "resources" are also finite, so a global economy built on perpetual growth/personal consumption is simply not possible. We need to consider what level of technology is sustainable on a planet with finite resources.

Greer offers 7 older technologies that would work well and be more sustainable than current alternatives.
One example is windjammer ships for global transportation of goods. These were economically viable until the discovery of cheap oil; and will become viable again as oil supplies decline and oil prices climb.

But we need to recapture the knowledge of how to build and operate these ships; and the lead time means we need to start building/training BEFORE they again become economically viable.

Our pursuit of progress has caused us to abandon many older technologies that worked well and which may again be needed in the future. And our seniors/elders will be critical to this return to older technologies because they are the only ones with real world knowledge and experience with these technologies.

For instance, how many younger people know how to bake bread, make butter, can foods, ''etc.''?
How many have operated a long-range radio or used a slide rule?

Our seniors/elders have a wealth of vital knowledge and experience that must not be lost!

Community Resilience (or relocalization) and a Steady State Economy are two ideas that fit with Greer's idea.

Community Resilience and a Steady State Economy are two big ideas that, together, address the 4 major global crises described at the beginning of this discussion.

Community Resilience and relocalization provide us with concrete actions we can take at the local level to address these global issues.

And the concept of a Steady state Economy provides a framework for building national economies and a global economy that works for everyone and respects the ecological limits of the planet.

These two ideas aren’t really new; they describe how we humans have lived for most of our time on planet earth. It is only in the last 200 years or so that we have gotten away from these tried-and-true approaches. Perhaps it is time that we revisit these strategies to get: '''Back to the Future'''.

====Questions for Discussion====

Here are some questions to consider for our "Back to The Future" discussion:

* What are your thoughts on the four global crises discussed above?
* What are your thoughts on the concept of "Community Resilience"?
* What are your thoughts on the idea of a "Steady State Economy"?
* What are your thoughts on Greer's proposal for "deliberate technological regression as a matter of public policy" as a way to adopt practices/technologies that are more sustainable on a planet with finite resources?
* What "older" tools/techniques/technologies/processes have you used in the past that worked well and are more sustainable than current alternatives?
* What "older" knowledge/skills do you have that could become necessary again in a "retro future"?

====References====

If these ideas interest you, here are some books and resources you may want to explore:

'''Books''':
* "The Retro Future" by John Michael Greer
* "Enough is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources" by Rob Dietz and Dan O'Neill
* "Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet" by Tim Jackson
* "Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State Solution" by Brian Czech
* "The Transition Handbook", "The Transition Companion" and "The Power of Just Doing Stuff", all by Rob Hopkins
* "The Upside of Down" by Thomas Homer-Dixon
* "Powerdown: Options and actions for a Post Carbon world"
* "Eco-Mind" by Frances Moore-Lappe (offers a contrary perspective/counter-argument to many of the above authors)

'''Websites''':
* [https://transitionnetwork.org/ Transition] (a community resilience movement that began in the UK in 2005 and has spread across the globe)
* [http://www.postcarbon.org/ PostCarbon] (the Post Carbon Community website)
* [https://communityrenewal.ca/ Community Renewal] (the website for the Canadian Centre for Community Renewal in Port Alberni)
* [http://www.steadystate.org/ CASSE]: the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy)
* [https://bealocalist.org/ BALLE]: the Business Alliance for Living Local Economies)

'''Inspirational Motto''' contributed by '''Jess''':
[[File:andrews-motto.png|100px|Elliott Andrews' family motto]]

==== MINUTES ====

Anyone care to describe the meeting?

From Philip:

Here are my ideas from the meeting that Don has not already mentioned above.

I believe “steady state economy”, “circular economy” and a “sustainable economy” all refer to the same thing.

To help achieve a steady state economy and a high quality of life we need to replace our car-oriented suburban big-box store cities with walkable, affordable, attractive, medium density, mixed zone, local communities.

We should replace the Gross Domestic Product as a measure of the strength of an economy with the Genuine Progress Indicator.

Governments should pay more attention to measures of happiness in the country and try to maximize them.

Recognize the powerful interests such as the banks that benefit from the economy as it is so they can be controlled.

Governments should penalize companies that continue to focus on maximizing profits and share prices in the short term. We can do this by changing the limited liability charters so corporations pay attention to the longer term and to goals other than profit -- employees, the environment and society as a whole.

Somehow change societal norms to stop measuring everything with money.

To facilitate change we need to pay close attention to why people believe what they do.

Advanced A.I. should help us find a path to a steady state economy.

OFC Meeting 5

2022-09-23T18:04:14Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''08 May 2018''': '''''Don Giberson''''' presents...
===Back To The Future:===
====How We Can Address Four of Our Biggest Global Challenges====
</center>
We are living in very challenging times. There are 4 major issues that pose serious threats not only to our way of life, but to our very existence. In this presentation, I would like to offer two possible solutions that, together, address all 4 of these major issues.

We are facing a number of major issues today. These are sometimes referred to as the E4 Crises: Energy, Economy, Ecology and Equity. Let’s briefly look at each of these.

====Global Crisis #1: Energy====

Energy is everything: nothing happens without energy. It is the foundation of life.

For most of our time on earth, our energy came from human or animal muscle power or from the sun, wind or water. These forms of energy were limited, which, in turn, limited the amount of work we could perform. But that all changed when we discovered fossil fuels. Oil, coal and natural gas are all amazing discoveries: they are incredibly concentrated forms of energy, they are portable (so we can move them from where they are found to where they are needed), they have been abundant and they have been cheap.

Let’s say your car gets 30 mpg. Then one gallon of gas will propel your car 30 miles; and will probably do so in less than 30 minutes. And that gallon of gas cost you less than $6.00. Now imagine pushing that car 30 miles: how long would it take you, how much energy would you use and how much would it cost you in food to generate that energy? What if you wanted to pull the car with a couple of horses? Again, imagine how long it would take, how much energy would be needed and what it would cost. So fossil fuels really have been an amazing discovery. Not surprisingly, we have used them as much as possible. We use them to power our cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, ships, tractors and all kinds of other machines. We use them to heat our homes and generate our electricity. We use them to produce steel, concrete and other energy-intensive materials. We use them to grow our food, mine for minerals and metals, produce goods and services, and to transport those goods and services around the world. We use them in plastics, cosmetics and numerous other products. We have built an entire global, interconnected economy on the back of cheap fossil fuels.

But there is one B-I-G problem; and it rarely gets mentioned in the mainstream media. And that problem is: Peak Oil. Peak Oil is defined as: “the point when further expansion of oil production becomes impossible because new production flows are fully offset by production declines.” Most indicators suggest that we have already reached this point and that we are on the downward curve of oil supply. One example: global oil production has basically flat-lined since 2005. In other words, we are starting to run out of oil. Although we are still discovering new sources of oil, these new sources are usually smaller in size (quantity) or poorer in quality than those they need to replace. One indicator of this is EROEI: Energy Return on Energy Invested. EROEI is calculated by dividing energy delivered by the energy required to deliver that energy. In 1930, the EROEI was 100:1; one barrel of oil spent on oil production resulted in 100 barrels of oil produced. By 1970, that had declined to 30:1. By 2005 it was down to 15:1. It is now around 10:1 to 5:1 and continues to decline. This means more and more of the limited amount of oil remaining is going into oil production and energy output is declining.

However, these lower EROEIs are still higher than many proposed alternatives: solar collectors, solar flat plates, bitumen tar sands oil, biodiesel, corn ethanol, sugar cane ethanol and shale oil all have an EROEI of 5:1 or less. Photovoltaics have an EROEI of 6.8:1, geothermal without hot water heating is 9.5:1, wind is 18:1, CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) Electric is 19:1, geothermal with hot water heating is 32:1, hydro is 100:1 and nuclear is 105:1. Hydro and nuclear both have high EROEIs but most potential hydro sites have already been developed and nuclear is very expensive and carries significant environmental concerns. Coal has an EROEI of 80:1, is abundant and is fairly cheap; which explains why it is a preferred energy source for many developing countries. However, burning coal carries significant environmental consequences. Unfortunately, except for coal, there are few alternatives to oil that produce anywhere near the same energy return. This means we are ultimately heading towards a lower energy future; which has huge implications for our high-energy globally interconnected and interdependent world.

====Global Crisis #2: Economy====

The discovery of oil, coal and natural gas unleashed an energy revolution. We built machines to run on these fossil fuels and these machines could do far more work than could be done previously with human, animal, solar, wind or water power. Productivity skyrocketed and economies grew: it was a heady period of expansion and growth.

But we reached a point of over-production: we were producing more than we needed. This led to the Great Depression of 1929. To solve the problem of overproduction, we developed the ideas of consumerism and economic growth; which were promoted through advertising and supported by the availability of credit. This was further driven through globalization, trade, cheap oil and a global financial system; factors which allowed large corporations to scour the globe in search of the lowest priced energy, labour and resources. So we have built an entire global economy driven by consumerism and perpetual economic growth that is heavily dependent on cheap energy to keep it all going.

But as we have already seen, the cheap oil is running out and increasing demand and decreasing supplies will drive oil prices up dramatically. This will lead to a major global economic contraction. When oil prices spiked in the 1970s, the U.S. economy went into a recession.

As author Richard Heinberg points out: “Oil has become the world’s foremost energy resource. There is no ready substitute and decades will be required to wean societies from it. Peak oil could therefore constitute the greatest economic challenge since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution”.

====Global Crisis #3: Ecology/Environment====

The third crises we need to face and address is ecological: we are living beyond the earth’s carrying capacity. We depend on nature for the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Nature provides the materials to build our homes and to heat and cool them. Every manufactured good uses minerals, metals or other materials that come from nature. We depend on nature for our very survival; yet we are rapidly depleting many of the planet’s non-renewable resources and we are using up many of the planet’s renewable resources (such as fish and forests) faster than nature can replenish them. Species extinction, loss of biodiversity, acidification of the oceans, pollution, and climate change are other major ecological issues caused by our consumerist culture.

There are two main factors driving the depletion of the earth’s resources: population growth and consumerism under the guise of perpetual economic growth. There are about 7.5 billion people on the planet and that number is growing at about 1% per year. 1% doesn’t sound like much but a 1% growth rate means that the world’s population would double to 15 billion in just 70 years. We are adding about 80 million more people each year (net births minus deaths). That’s 80 million more people each year who need food, water, clothing and shelter.

The other main driver of resource depletion is the pursuit of global economic growth. Perpetual growth on a finite planet is simply not possible. To illustrate this, consider the following example. Let’s say the global economy is using 1/8 of the world’s resources and we want to maintain global economic growth of 3%. How long would it take before we overwhelm the earth’s carrying capacity? The answer is: just 69 years. At a 3% growth rate, the economy would double every 23 years. That means that in 23 years the economy would double and we would go from using 1/8 to 2/8 of the earth’s resources. In another 23 years, the global economy would double again and we would be using 4/8 of the earth’s resources. Another 23 years, only 69 years in total, and the global economy would be using 8/8 or all of the earth’s resources. We have been pushing the idea of global economic growth for almost a century now; and the Global Footprint Network calculates that we are using 12/8 of the world’s resources; we are actually exceeding the earth’s carrying capacity. The global economy has gotten too big and we are depleting many of the planet’s resources that we depend on for our survival. We are killing the golden goose.

This explains why physicist Albert Bartlett has said “The greatest failing of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

====Global Crisis #4: Equity====

The fourth crisis we need to address is the equity crisis. Income inequality has grown steadily over the past few decades. The promotion of consumerism and the ready availability of credit led many people into debt. Wealth flowed from borrowers to lenders, concentrating wealth and growing income inequality. The wealthy used their money and influence to shape public policies which and become even richer. The same thing happened globally; with “wealthy” nations becoming wealthier and “poor” nations becoming poorer. Today, the 300 wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion combined!

The wealthy have also grown their wealth by expropriating the commons. "The Commons" refers to the cultural and natural resources that are accessible to all members of society and not privately owned. In our earlier agrarian societies, many people shared food and resources and had a shared interest in preserving them. Beginning in the Middle Ages, the wealthy began expropriating the commons and could defend their seizures. This privatization of the commons has continued to the present and claims much of the world. Correcting inequality will require reclaiming and expanding the commons once more.

The growth of the corporation, with the emphasis on profit, has also concentrated wealth. Today, if we rank countries by GDP and corporations by revenues, 48 of the largest “economies” would be corporations! So correcting inequality may require new forms of business and ownership. There are many alternatives: cooperatives, B Corps (Benefit Corporations), Social Enterprises, etc. Or perhaps we change the corporate laws to shift the goal from profit to the triple bottom line: profit, people AND planet.

The World Bank says that “economic growth is the essential ingredient for sustained poverty reduction.” But the statistics prove this wrong. The global economy has increased 25 fold over the past century yet more than 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day. For every $100 of global economic growth that occurred between 1990 and 2001, only 60 cents went to people below the $1-a-day line. In other words, to get the poorest people an extra $1 required a $166 increase in global production. Someone is profiting off economic growth but it is not the world’s poor.

This is also true in the wealthier nations, with economic benefits increasingly flowing to the wealthiest individuals. For instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, top corporate executives in the U.S. took home 25 to 30 times the income of typical workers. In 1980, CEOs earned 40 times more than workers. By 1990, the gap had widened to 100 times. And in 2007 the difference was an astonishing 350 times. More and more wealth is concentrating at the top of the economic pyramid. And this is occurring in most developed countries, not just the U.S.

Income inequality is a slow-burning powder-keg that threatens to explode if we don’t tackle it. And numerous studies have shown that improving equity has numerous and far-reaching benefits:

* People enjoy better health and longer life expectancy
* Fewer citizens develop drug addictions
* People are less victimized by violence
* Birth rates among teenage girls is lower
* Children experience higher levels of well-being
* The rate of obesity declines
* Mental illness is less common
* Fewer people end up in prison
* Opportunities for social mobility are more widespread

These are worthy benefits that justify a determined pursuit of equity.

====Two Solutions to Our Four Global Crises====

The E4 Crises of Energy, Economy, Ecology and Equity are major challenges and, as we have seen, they are all closely inter-related. Tackling any one, without understanding and addressing this interconnectivity, will have limited impact.

With this in mind, here are two “big ideas” that, together, could go a long ways to addressing all four of these issues: Community Resilience (or Relocalization) and a Steady State Economy.

Let's look at each of these briefly.

====Community Resilience====

The above E4 Crises are likely to produce significant global shock waves that will ripple across the planet right down to our local communities. We need to identify these potential shocks and develop strategies to address them.

That is the idea behind Community Resilience. Community Resilience refers to a community’s ability to adapt to and bounce back from shocks and disruptions. It is a community-based, people-driven, solutions-oriented approach to finding workable solutions to global problems at the local level.

One of the main strategies for developing community resilience is relocalization: the idea that a community should produce locally as much of its essential needs as possible. This is done to reduce reliance and dependency on vulnerable global systems (transportation, food, energy. finance, etc.).

This includes such initiatives as:
* local food (meeting food needs from local food sources as much as possible)
* local energy (decentralized, locally owned power systems as opposed to large scale centralized energy grids)
* local economies (more local businesses and fewer large multi-national chains)
* local housing (building homes using local building supplies)
* local business exchanges and cooperatives
* local currencies (to reduce the outflow of capital from a community)
* local education
* local medicine/health (for example: developing local medicines to reduce dependency on foreign drugs)

Community Resilience does not oppose trade, but seeks to provide as much of the community's needs locally/regionally as possible and then to rely on trade for what cannot be provided locally/regionally.

It should also be noted that this presentation uses the word "relocalization" instead of "localization" because this is how we humans have lived for most of our time on earth. It is only over the last 200 years or so, with the discovery of cheap fossil fuels and the adoption of consumerism, economic growth and globalization that we have moved away from these strategies.

In the "old days" of trains and steamships, it was very expensive to transport things over long distances.
Usually only the very wealthy were able to afford to import things; especially if they were heavy.
So things were produced locally as much as possible.

Community Resilience or releocalization is a big "Back To The Future" idea that addresses all 4 of the crises described above.

====Steady State Economy====

Another big idea that also addresses all 4 crises is the concept of a Steady State Economy.

A Steady State Economy is defined as an economy that aims to maintain a stable population and a stable and sustainable level of resource consumption. It’s an economy in which material and energy use are kept within ecological limits, and in which the goal of MORE (economic growth or increasing GDP) is replaced by the goal of BETTER (improving quality of life).

Our global economy is a human invention. We created it; and we can change it. It is possible To create a global Steady State Economy (SSE).

How would we get to a Steady State Economy? Consider a diagram with Size of the Economy on the vertical-axis (too small, optimal and too large); and Resource Use on horizontal-axis (increasing, stable, decreasing). This would produce four quadrants and each nation’s path to a SSE would depend on its starting point:

* A nation in Quadrant 1 (Undesirable Growth) has an economy that is consuming too many resources and its resource use is still increasing. Degrowth is necessary before this nation can achieve a steady state.
* A nation in Quadrant 2 (Desirable Degrowth) has an economy that is still consuming too many resources but its resource use is declining; it needs to continue its path of degrowth.
* A nation in Quadrant 3 (Undesirable Degrowth) has an economy that is too small and is shrinking; so it needs to pursue a policy of growth to get to a steady state.
* A nation that is in Quadrant 4 (Desirable Growth) is increasing its use of resources but its resource use is still below a stable level; this nation can continue to grow until it reaches a steady state.

It is worth noting that the idea of a Steady State Economy does not preclude the possibility of growth; but it limits growth to those nations whose economies have not reached optimal size and whose resource use is still below sustainable levels.

This is a fair, balanced and sustainable approach to the global economy. Developed nations have about 16% of the world’s population but they account for about 78% of the global consumption expenditures. Such nations can adopt a policy of degrowth, bringing their economies into line with their country’s ecological limits, and still meet the needs of their citizens.

On the other hand, 40% of the world’s population struggles to subsist on less than $2 per day. Clearly, these nations need to grow their economy to better meet the needs of their citizens.

The Steady State Economy does not advocate blanket global economic growth for everyone (which is not sustainable) but allows for economic growth for those who truly need it.

So what would a Steady State Economy look like?

The goal of a SSE would be sustainable and equitable human well-being (BETTER, not MORE).

The foundation of a SSE would be based on 4 key building blocks:
* Sustainable scale (material and energy use are stabilized and kept within ecological limits)
* Fair distribution (inequality is reduced; people have equal opportunities for wealth/income)
* Efficient allocation (resources are efficiently allocated among competing interests through markets and other means when markets don’t work)
* High quality of life (GDP growth takes a back seat to what really matters to most people: health, happiness, secure employment, leisure time, strong communities and economic stability)

How do we get there from here? To move to a SSE, we will need to:
* Limit resource use and waste production
* Stabilize population
* Distribute income and wealth equitably
* Reform monetary and financial systems
* Change the way we measure progress
* Secure full employment
* Rethink how businesses create value
* Replace the culture of consumerism with a culture of sustainability
* Stimulate political debate and media coverage of the limits to growth and the steady-state alternative
* Change national goals regarding growth and improve international cooperation

The above is not a radical idea; it describes how we have lived on this planet for most of our existence. Earlier agrarian economies had many of the features of a Steady State Economy described above.

Remember: the global economy is a human invention. We created it. This means we can re-create it. We can abandon the unsustainable ideas of consumerism and perpetual economic growth and create a global Steady State Economy that is fairer, more balanced, sustainable and equitable.

Isn't that a goal worth pursuing?

====Back to the Future====

In the future, we may "go back" to the way we ''used'' to do certain things.

In his book, '''The Retro Future''', John Michael Greer suggests an approach many people would find unthinkable: deliberate technological regression as public policy.

Much of today's "progress" has reached the point of "diminishing returns": is the latest technology (cellphone, television, automobile, etc.) really that much better than yesterday's model?
In most cases the answer is no; yet we continue to use up valuable resources producing these "new but not improved" products.

Greer argues that there are many "older" technologies that work as well or better than current technologies; and many use far fewer resources and are thus more sustainable.

We live on a finite planet and most of the planet's "resources" are also finite, so a global economy built on perpetual growth/personal consumption is simply not possible. We need to consider what level of technology is sustainable on a planet with finite resources.

Greer offers 7 older technologies that would work well and be more sustainable than current alternatives.
One example is windjammer ships for global transportation of goods. These were economically viable until the discovery of cheap oil; and will become viable again as oil supplies decline and oil prices climb.

But we need to recapture the knowledge of how to build and operate these ships; and the lead time means we need to start building/training BEFORE they again become economically viable.

Our pursuit of progress has caused us to abandon many older technologies that worked well and which may again be needed in the future. And our seniors/elders will be critical to this return to older technologies because they are the only ones with real world knowledge and experience with these technologies.

For instance, how many younger people know how to bake bread, make butter, can foods, ''etc.''?
How many have operated a long-range radio or used a slide rule?

Our seniors/elders have a wealth of vital knowledge and experience that must not be lost!

Community Resilience (or relocalization) and a Steady State Economy are two ideas that fit with Greer's idea.

Community Resilience and a Steady State Economy are two big ideas that, together, address the 4 major global crises described at the beginning of this discussion.

Community Resilience and relocalization provide us with concrete actions we can take at the local level to address these global issues.

And the concept of a Steady state Economy provides a framework for building national economies and a global economy that works for everyone and respects the ecological limits of the planet.

These two ideas aren’t really new; they describe how we humans have lived for most of our time on planet earth. It is only in the last 200 years or so that we have gotten away from these tried-and-true approaches. Perhaps it is time that we revisit these strategies to get: '''Back to the Future'''.

====Questions for Discussion====

Here are some questions to consider for our "Back to The Future" discussion:

* What are your thoughts on the four global crises discussed above?
* What are your thoughts on the concept of "Community Resilience"?
* What are your thoughts on the idea of a "Steady State Economy"?
* What are your thoughts on Greer's proposal for "deliberate technological regression as a matter of public policy" as a way to adopt practices/technologies that are more sustainable on a planet with finite resources?
* What "older" tools/techniques/technologies/processes have you used in the past that worked well and are more sustainable than current alternatives?
* What "older" knowledge/skills do you have that could become necessary again in a "retro future"?

====References====

If these ideas interest you, here are some books and resources you may want to explore:

'''Books''':
* "The Retro Future" by John Michael Greer
* "Enough is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources" by Rob Dietz and Dan O'Neill
* "Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet" by Tim Jackson
* "Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State Solution" by Brian Czech
* "The Transition Handbook", "The Transition Companion" and "The Power of Just Doing Stuff", all by Rob Hopkins
* "The Upside of Down" by Thomas Homer-Dixon
* "Powerdown: Options and actions for a Post Carbon world"
* "Eco-Mind" by Frances Moore-Lappe (offers a contrary perspective/counter-argument to many of the above authors)

'''Websites''':
* [https://transitionnetwork.org/ Transition] (a community resilience movement that began in the UK in 2005 and has spread across the globe)
* [http://www.postcarbon.org/ PostCarbon] (the Post Carbon Community website)
* [https://communityrenewal.ca/ Community Renewal] (the website for the Canadian Centre for Community Renewal in Port Alberni)
* [http://www.steadystate.org/ CASSE]: the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy)
* [https://bealocalist.org/ BALLE]: the Business Alliance for Living Local Economies)

'''Inspirational Motto''' contributed by '''Jess''':
[[File:andrews-motto.png|100px|Elliott Andrews' family motto]]

==== MINUTES ====

Anyone care to describe the meeting?

From Philip:

Here are my ideas from the meeting that Don has not already mentioned above.

I believe “steady state economy”, “circular economy” and a “sustainable economy” all refer to the same thing.

To help achieve a steady state economy and a high quality of life we need to replace our car-oriented suburban big-box store cities with walkable, affordable, attractive, medium density, mixed zone, local communities.

We should replace the Gross Domestic Product as a measure of the strength of an economy with the Genuine Progress Indicator.

Governments should pay more attention to measures of happiness in the country and try to maximize them.

Recognize the powerful interests such as the banks that benefit from the economy as it is so they can be controlled.

Governments should penalize companies that continue to focus on maximizing profits and share prices in the short term. We can do this by changing the limited liability charters so corporations pay attention to the longer term and to goals other than profit -- employees, the environment and society as a whole.

Somehow change societal norms to stop measuring everything with money.

To facilitate change we need to pay close attention to why people believe what they do.

Advanced A.I. should help us find a path to a steady state economy.

OFC Meeting 6

2022-09-23T18:03:15Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''12 June 2018''': '''Philip Manders''' presents

=== DEATH IN THE FUTURE ===
</center>

Some questions I ('''Philip''') can think of for the discussion are:

# Is death as inevitable as taxes? Can we imagine living much longer?
# Are there are worse outcomes than death, such as dementia?
# What will our lives be worth as the population grows to 10 billion and beyond? Is human life sacred or are we becoming an unwanted invasive species and should be replaced by a more intelligent and moral life form?
# Since we did not exist before we were born why do we fear not existing in the future? Do we value our lives just for the entertainment value?

----

Comments from '''Jess''':

[http://www.twainquotes.com/Death.html Mark Twain] had several things to say about death. I particularly like [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25647-i-do-not-fear-death-i-had-been-dead-for this one].

Another quotation I thought was his, but may not be: "''Either death is like sleeping -- and I '''like''' sleeping -- or it's not -- in which case I have some questions''."

Ah, yes... back around 1970, the Los Angeles Free Press ran a special report on Health and Death with a huge front-page headline that read something like this, with all sorts of fancy fonts:

"'''Regardless of how good your health care plan is, how healthy you eat and drink, whether you smoke, how much exercise you get or how carefully you avoid dangerous practices and hazardous materials, YOU, PERSONALLY, are going to DIE.'''"

(I paraphrase, for lack of a copy of the original.)

This seemed to me at the time like an excellent starting point for any discussion of risks, health or safety; I used it in all my lectures on [http://jick.net/skept/RadHaz/ Radiation Hazards], for instance.

But today it's not so clear whether those of us with lots of money and at least a few decades left on our life expectancy have to take that advice at face value any more. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_escape_velocity Longevity Escape Velocity]. I look forward to a brisk debate on this topic! :-)

''Added at the last minute'': I've been reading Yuval Noah Harari's book, ''Sapiens: a Brief History of Humankind'', and found a section I wanted everyone to see; I considered making copies, and then found that Harari has put it online(!) along with an introduction to his next book, ''Homo Deus''. See [http://www.ynharari.com/topic/future/ FUTURE], especially the section headed '''The War Against Death''', where he describes the latest continuations of King Gilgamesh's quest. I think Harari is correct that our quest for immortality is likely to be overtaken by technology that will turn us into (by any previous standards) gods. This is the topic of ''Homo Deus'', which I look forward to reading!
----

'''Roland''''s Opinion:

Humans are the only species on earth that are conscious of their own fate. No other living thing on earth has the consciousness to realize that it will one day... Die.

When you combine such consciousness with a strong built-in survival instinct you will naturally produce a conflict within the mind where your rational mind will accept that ALL living things die -- and an extremely strong natural instinct to try to save yourself from death. This conflict (I believe) is what causes most of us to fear death.

I don't think most of us are in it for the entertainment value (as Phil suggested) but rather -- we are driven by our survival instinct to try to hang on to life on earth as long as possible. I know of people (including my father) who have made a rational decision to end their life when they felt that there was no longer a hope for even a semi-normal life.

There is often (still) a pervasive fear of what happens when you die -- even when you make a rational decision not to go on living. I believe this fear stems from our survival instinct.

Humans have feared death and the afterlife since the dawn of recorded history. I don't think that will change in the next 20 years. Right now we are willing to spend very large sums of money (resources) on extending human life even if the person can never fully recover and might just live a marginal existence. Some might say that we should expend our limited resources on those with the best chance at a full and meaningful life -- or those that would make the greatest contribution to society ''e.g.'' Steven Hawkings. Is it possible that in the future we might take a completely rational approach to human death and try to overcome the survival instinct and bonding sentiment that is built in to us at birth.

If we do look at death as an inevitable and rational thing -- will we then pick and choose who gets to live longer?
Will the wealthy and skillful (or talented) among us survive well into their second century while the rest of us simply do the best we can with whatever resources we have. My guts tell me that the survival instinct is stronger than any rational thought and that if we start to pick and choose who lives longer - then you would see massive social unrest. So in my opinion our approach to death will remain with us for a considerable time.

Please feel free to disagree or correct any of my thoughts on death. -- '''Roland'''
----

Comment from '''Hendrik''':

I have come across an interesting website: [http://www.guymcpherson.com Guy McPherson] is a climatologist (if there is such a person!) with some interesting, though disturbing ideas. In his book ''Going dark'' Guy maintains that we as a species have less then ten years left on this planet. It's all to do with a tipping point that has been reached in the Arctic. As more and more ice melts, less sunlight is reflected back into space and more is absorbed in the water, heating it, causing yet more ice to melt, ''etc. etc.'' On top of this, large quantities of Methane are released in the atmosphere, causing an ever higher temperature and a accelerated looping effect.

McPherson says that this is a done deal: computer models have proven that even if we stopped all industrial activity today, extinction would still happen. His advice is to live to the fullest in the time we have left, and not waste our energy trying to change the inevitable.

Whether or not you agree with Guy, he has broached an interesting topic: How to deal with Death, not as an individual, but as a species. It would force us to make short term decisions, rather than long term, and re-evaluate our relationships with others. I thought this could be added to the topics for discussion in Philip's presentation.
See you then. -- '''Henk'''
----

'''Philip''': Here is an updated copy of the introduction I gave on June 12:

<center>'''Death in the Future'''</center>

For the future we need to learn how to make the awareness/fear of death a positive force and how to handle life extension and the possibility of minds transferred to machines.

Ernest Becker, an anthropologist who taught at SFU for the last five years of his life (he died in 1974), wrote that the unconscious fear of death drives much of the good and evil that we do. According to this theory we strive to get some measure of immortality by becoming a "hero", which can take many forms, both good and bad: we could be a hero for helping the disadvantaged or by being a loyal member of a terrorist group. Ernest Becker’s theory has been supported by psychological experiments described in the documentary film "Flight from Death" (2003) that show how subjects given subliminal reminders of death will identify more strongly with their own groups and be less generous to others.

What can we do in the future to encourage people to use their fear of death more constructively? The fact that the fear is largely unconscious can make it uncontrollable and destructive. Talking about it, for example in a "death cafe", allows us to make the fear conscious, and thus amenable to motivating us to live our lives more intensely and wisely. It is to be hoped that this conversation finds it way into media and the general populace.

The fear of death can be consciously used to motivate us do all sorts of good things, though it would probably be best to think of this as awareness of death rather than fear. It also should motivate us to give and receive love more readily. And death is not virtual -- awareness of it should cause us to value the physical world more, including other forms of life.

A world in which death is eliminated or greatly postponed would be an obvious advantage for the individual -- there are few people who would not welcome more healthy years. But for society and the planet serious problems would arise:

# We would have a world in which there would be little room for younger people with their fresh ideas and perceptions. It has been said that science advances one funeral at a time.
# As I mentioned above, the awareness of death can be a powerful positive motivator.
# If most people lived very long lives we would increase the burden of the large human population on the planet.
# And practically, it is unlikely that aging will be totally conquered, which means we will have longer lifespans in total but also more years of decrepitude.

One radical non-coercive solution to the problem of many people hanging on and perhaps suffering would be to allow everyone over a certain age to have medical assistance in dying, on request. This has already been proposed in the Netherlands. But what a difficult, maybe impossible to solve, problem this is though -- because ethically we are obligated to respect all human lives.

It seems likely we will have Artificial General Intelligence in the future. Some have proposed to defeat death by uploading minds to to an AGI. Unless civilization is totally destroyed, an AGI would never die -- we could restore a backup if necessary. However without the human body and any fear of death, the uploaded minds would usually just be uninteresting simulations. In general the lack of a biological body and mind and the absence of death in AGI would have obvious functional advantages, but I think they also mean that humans will never become superfluous.

To recap: the fear, or at least awareness, of death can be positive if it is conscious. And death from old age is not a bad thing from societies’ point of view.

OFC Meeting 6

2022-09-23T18:02:54Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''12 June 2019''': '''Philip Manders''' presents

=== DEATH IN THE FUTURE ===
</center>

Some questions I ('''Philip''') can think of for the discussion are:

# Is death as inevitable as taxes? Can we imagine living much longer?
# Are there are worse outcomes than death, such as dementia?
# What will our lives be worth as the population grows to 10 billion and beyond? Is human life sacred or are we becoming an unwanted invasive species and should be replaced by a more intelligent and moral life form?
# Since we did not exist before we were born why do we fear not existing in the future? Do we value our lives just for the entertainment value?

----

Comments from '''Jess''':

[http://www.twainquotes.com/Death.html Mark Twain] had several things to say about death. I particularly like [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25647-i-do-not-fear-death-i-had-been-dead-for this one].

Another quotation I thought was his, but may not be: "''Either death is like sleeping -- and I '''like''' sleeping -- or it's not -- in which case I have some questions''."

Ah, yes... back around 1970, the Los Angeles Free Press ran a special report on Health and Death with a huge front-page headline that read something like this, with all sorts of fancy fonts:

"'''Regardless of how good your health care plan is, how healthy you eat and drink, whether you smoke, how much exercise you get or how carefully you avoid dangerous practices and hazardous materials, YOU, PERSONALLY, are going to DIE.'''"

(I paraphrase, for lack of a copy of the original.)

This seemed to me at the time like an excellent starting point for any discussion of risks, health or safety; I used it in all my lectures on [http://jick.net/skept/RadHaz/ Radiation Hazards], for instance.

But today it's not so clear whether those of us with lots of money and at least a few decades left on our life expectancy have to take that advice at face value any more. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_escape_velocity Longevity Escape Velocity]. I look forward to a brisk debate on this topic! :-)

''Added at the last minute'': I've been reading Yuval Noah Harari's book, ''Sapiens: a Brief History of Humankind'', and found a section I wanted everyone to see; I considered making copies, and then found that Harari has put it online(!) along with an introduction to his next book, ''Homo Deus''. See [http://www.ynharari.com/topic/future/ FUTURE], especially the section headed '''The War Against Death''', where he describes the latest continuations of King Gilgamesh's quest. I think Harari is correct that our quest for immortality is likely to be overtaken by technology that will turn us into (by any previous standards) gods. This is the topic of ''Homo Deus'', which I look forward to reading!
----

'''Roland''''s Opinion:

Humans are the only species on earth that are conscious of their own fate. No other living thing on earth has the consciousness to realize that it will one day... Die.

When you combine such consciousness with a strong built-in survival instinct you will naturally produce a conflict within the mind where your rational mind will accept that ALL living things die -- and an extremely strong natural instinct to try to save yourself from death. This conflict (I believe) is what causes most of us to fear death.

I don't think most of us are in it for the entertainment value (as Phil suggested) but rather -- we are driven by our survival instinct to try to hang on to life on earth as long as possible. I know of people (including my father) who have made a rational decision to end their life when they felt that there was no longer a hope for even a semi-normal life.

There is often (still) a pervasive fear of what happens when you die -- even when you make a rational decision not to go on living. I believe this fear stems from our survival instinct.

Humans have feared death and the afterlife since the dawn of recorded history. I don't think that will change in the next 20 years. Right now we are willing to spend very large sums of money (resources) on extending human life even if the person can never fully recover and might just live a marginal existence. Some might say that we should expend our limited resources on those with the best chance at a full and meaningful life -- or those that would make the greatest contribution to society ''e.g.'' Steven Hawkings. Is it possible that in the future we might take a completely rational approach to human death and try to overcome the survival instinct and bonding sentiment that is built in to us at birth.

If we do look at death as an inevitable and rational thing -- will we then pick and choose who gets to live longer?
Will the wealthy and skillful (or talented) among us survive well into their second century while the rest of us simply do the best we can with whatever resources we have. My guts tell me that the survival instinct is stronger than any rational thought and that if we start to pick and choose who lives longer - then you would see massive social unrest. So in my opinion our approach to death will remain with us for a considerable time.

Please feel free to disagree or correct any of my thoughts on death. -- '''Roland'''
----

Comment from '''Hendrik''':

I have come across an interesting website: [http://www.guymcpherson.com Guy McPherson] is a climatologist (if there is such a person!) with some interesting, though disturbing ideas. In his book ''Going dark'' Guy maintains that we as a species have less then ten years left on this planet. It's all to do with a tipping point that has been reached in the Arctic. As more and more ice melts, less sunlight is reflected back into space and more is absorbed in the water, heating it, causing yet more ice to melt, ''etc. etc.'' On top of this, large quantities of Methane are released in the atmosphere, causing an ever higher temperature and a accelerated looping effect.

McPherson says that this is a done deal: computer models have proven that even if we stopped all industrial activity today, extinction would still happen. His advice is to live to the fullest in the time we have left, and not waste our energy trying to change the inevitable.

Whether or not you agree with Guy, he has broached an interesting topic: How to deal with Death, not as an individual, but as a species. It would force us to make short term decisions, rather than long term, and re-evaluate our relationships with others. I thought this could be added to the topics for discussion in Philip's presentation.
See you then. -- '''Henk'''
----

'''Philip''': Here is an updated copy of the introduction I gave on June 12:

<center>'''Death in the Future'''</center>

For the future we need to learn how to make the awareness/fear of death a positive force and how to handle life extension and the possibility of minds transferred to machines.

Ernest Becker, an anthropologist who taught at SFU for the last five years of his life (he died in 1974), wrote that the unconscious fear of death drives much of the good and evil that we do. According to this theory we strive to get some measure of immortality by becoming a "hero", which can take many forms, both good and bad: we could be a hero for helping the disadvantaged or by being a loyal member of a terrorist group. Ernest Becker’s theory has been supported by psychological experiments described in the documentary film "Flight from Death" (2003) that show how subjects given subliminal reminders of death will identify more strongly with their own groups and be less generous to others.

What can we do in the future to encourage people to use their fear of death more constructively? The fact that the fear is largely unconscious can make it uncontrollable and destructive. Talking about it, for example in a "death cafe", allows us to make the fear conscious, and thus amenable to motivating us to live our lives more intensely and wisely. It is to be hoped that this conversation finds it way into media and the general populace.

The fear of death can be consciously used to motivate us do all sorts of good things, though it would probably be best to think of this as awareness of death rather than fear. It also should motivate us to give and receive love more readily. And death is not virtual -- awareness of it should cause us to value the physical world more, including other forms of life.

A world in which death is eliminated or greatly postponed would be an obvious advantage for the individual -- there are few people who would not welcome more healthy years. But for society and the planet serious problems would arise:

# We would have a world in which there would be little room for younger people with their fresh ideas and perceptions. It has been said that science advances one funeral at a time.
# As I mentioned above, the awareness of death can be a powerful positive motivator.
# If most people lived very long lives we would increase the burden of the large human population on the planet.
# And practically, it is unlikely that aging will be totally conquered, which means we will have longer lifespans in total but also more years of decrepitude.

One radical non-coercive solution to the problem of many people hanging on and perhaps suffering would be to allow everyone over a certain age to have medical assistance in dying, on request. This has already been proposed in the Netherlands. But what a difficult, maybe impossible to solve, problem this is though -- because ethically we are obligated to respect all human lives.

It seems likely we will have Artificial General Intelligence in the future. Some have proposed to defeat death by uploading minds to to an AGI. Unless civilization is totally destroyed, an AGI would never die -- we could restore a backup if necessary. However without the human body and any fear of death, the uploaded minds would usually just be uninteresting simulations. In general the lack of a biological body and mind and the absence of death in AGI would have obvious functional advantages, but I think they also mean that humans will never become superfluous.

To recap: the fear, or at least awareness, of death can be positive if it is conscious. And death from old age is not a bad thing from societies’ point of view.

OFC Meeting 7

2022-09-23T18:02:28Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''10 July 2018''':

===The Future of Transportation===

Moderator: '''[mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess H. Brewer]'''
</center>

I will give a brief introduction to the subject (problems & possible innovative solutions for transportation in the next 20 years), posit some of my own theories, pose a few questions, and then turn the floor over to the group.

Feel free to prepare a brief presentation of your own on your favourite aspects of the topic. You may want to post a condensed version here to get us up to speed; here's mine:

====THE ISSUES:====
It occurs to me that "TRANSPORTATION" encompasses a number of issues that don't necessarily overlap; I hope to keep these all in mind as I step through PAST, PRESENT, NEAR FUTURE and DISTANT FUTURE schemes below.
* ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS of Transportation include pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, paving of arable land, wildlife "roadkill" and blockage of migration routes.
* PERSONAL Transportation is defined as individuals' requirements to get from one place to another ''by themself''. Walking and bicycling are ideal for young healthy people, but they have limited range, take longer and offer no protection against the weather. Also we are becoming less young and healthy.
* PUBLIC Transportation is when a number of people ''share'' the same technology to get from one place to another ''together''. Too many people view this as demeaning. Attitudes need to change.
* LOCAL Transportation is like when you need to get to work, the grocery store or a movie. This probably accounts for the majority of fuel consumption in North America.
* LONG DISTANCE Transportation is like when you go on vacation to someplace warm in mid-Winter.

====THE PAST:====

'''Wouldn't it be nice'''...

... if the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement Good Roads Movement] (started by American bicycle enthusiasts in the 1880s) had not led to the [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/landmark.pdf Federal Aid Road Act of 1916] which in turn led to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956] and the paving over of nearly 1% of the total land area of the contiguous 48 states? We could've had decent railroads instead, like most of Europe.

... if someone had forseen the logical consequences of millions of randomly selected idiots hurtling past each other in two-ton steel chariots at 100 kph in opposite directions? The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year motor vehicle fatality rate] now accounts for about 1.4% of all deaths in the USA each year.

... if we had continued to develop '''''dirigibles''''' for air travel after the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster Hindenburg disaster]?

Oh well.

====THE PRESENT:====

In 2015 there were 90,780,583 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production motor vehicles produced in the world]. With a population of about 7.6 billion people, that's about 1.2 new cars per year for every 1000 people. The birth rate worldwide is 18.5 babies per year per 1000 people and the death rate is 7.8 per year per 1000 people, so we are increasing our own numbers by 10.7 people per year per 1000 people -- almost ten times as fast as we are making new cars. Whew! We're still ahead of our cars, for the time being....

For those who decry air travel, you should be aware that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft fuel economy in airliners] is more than twice as good as that of the average passenger car; so don't even ''think'' about driving across country to "save fuel".

''Breaking News'' -- A [https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0396-8 recent paper on cancer rates of airline flight attendants] showed that their [https://www.spacewx.com/pdf/Aviation_radiation_SWJ_article.pdf cosmic radiation dose] (from flying above most of our protective blanket of atmosphere) is significant and does cause cancer. The dose rate [https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/06/10/global-cosmic-radiation-measurements/ varies from place to place on Earth] and can get as high as 40 times the sea-level dose rate. So maybe there's a ''legitimate'' reason to avoid air travel? ''Nah''. Nothing to worry about. See [http://jick.net/skept/RadHaz/ Radiation Hazards].

Focusing on the interface between the Present and the Near Future, many proposals (see the References below) involve more use of improved rail or highways; but today we don't seem to be able to maintain our ''existing'' infrastructure. Bridges are on the verge of collapse all over North America; highways are barely navigable in many places; and existing railroads are being shut down for lack of maintenance -- ''viz.'' the now-unused railroad up the East coat of Vancouver Island, whose right-of-way could be used for a ''Skytrain''-like service with stations within bicycle range of most of the population of the Island. But no one is even proposing such a replacement for the convoy of speeding pickup trucks on Highway 19....

====THE NEAR FUTURE:====

'''''Hybrid''''' electric/fossil fuel vehicles (including "pure electric" cars in most places where the electricity comes from fuel-burning power plants) offer a fuel efficiency 2-3 times better than gas or diesel alone. This helps, but not enough. Electrical power generation in general must get "greener" with solar, wind and nuclear.

'''''Self-driving cars''''' are the key to reducing the number of massive ''Strassenkreutzers'' carrying solitary drivers. Once the pleasure of driving is reduced, people may be glad to be picked up and delivered by tiny, efficient, automated vehicles. Bus service can also be improved and expanded.

Elon's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop Hyperloop]: Elon Musk and ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX SpaceX]'' have proposed to build an evacuated 350-mile (560 km) tube down which a mag-lev capsule will travel at a speed of 760 mph (1,200 km/h), allowing for a travel time of 35 minutes between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The tube would follow roughly the same route as US Highway 5. Cool.

Ultimately, however, we really need to give up traveling so compulsively.

====THE DISTANT FUTURE:====

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop Lofstrom Launch Loop] (see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1MAg0UAAHg video]) is intended for launching spacecraft directly and efficiently into or
bit as a mag-lev capsule in an evacuated tunnel with "active support" from the momentum of circulating high-speed projectiles, but it might also be used as an alternative to conventional air travel.
The energy economics have not yet been worked out.

'''''The Tunnel Train''''': A classic Physics homework problem asks what would happen if a tunnel could be dug (it can't!) from the North Pole straight through the center of the Earth to the South Pole, evacuated, and you dropped in a capsule. Pretending that the Earth is a sphere of uniform density (it isn't, but it's not too far off), we can easily calculate using [http://jick.net/skept/Gauss Gauss' Law] that the acceleration of gravity inside the Earth is proportional to the distance from the center. That's equivalent to a '''linear restoring force''' -- ''i.e.'' a spring! So the capsule will accelerate downwards at a decreaing rate until it reaches the center of the Earth, and then decelerate at an increasing rate until it appears at the other Pole, at rest, in roughly 42 minutes.

Even if we could make such a tunnel, there's not much call for travel between the Poles; and any other straight line through the center of the Earth would suffer Coriolis forces seeming to push the capsule sideways; these, however, could be counteracted by a mag-lev suspension system like that of the proposed Hyperloop. Too bad we can't make a tunnel through the center of the Earth.

But wait! A less-known extension of that homework problem can show that any ''chord'' through the Earth (a straight line between two points) will also yield the same effect with the same 42-minuite transit time. There may be some places where the crust is thick enough to make such a tunnel feasible. Except for the costs of keeping the air out and maintaining the mag-lev system (surely using lossless superconductors), this form of transportation costs nothing at all. The Shinkansen "bullet train" can cover about 70 miles in 42 minutes, so a 70 mile "chord tunnel" would be like a free bullet train ride. By my calculations, such a chord would reach a maximum depth of only 248.7 m, which I'm sure we could manage. A tunnel with a maximum depth of 1 km would connect endpoints 140 miles apart in the same 42 minutes.

''Let's do it!''

====REFERENCES====
Here are a few URLs that I got from Googling "transportation future":
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_future_transport Wikipedia's List of Proposed Future Transport]
* [https://www.zdnet.com/article/tech-and-the-future-of-transportation-from-here-to-there/ ZDNet: Tech and the future of transportation: From here to there]
* [http://www.businessinsider.com/6-predictions-about-the-future-of-transportation-2015-11#people-will-be-driven-around-in-driverless-pods-by-2025-3 Business Insider: 6 Predictions about the future of transportation] (2015)
* [http://www.futureforall.org/transportation/future_of_transportation.htm FutureForAll: the future of transportation]
* [https://ideas.ted.com/the-future-of-transportation-is-already-here/ TED Idea: The future of transportation is already here]
* [http://www.thefutureoftransportconference.com/en/ News from the 2018 Future of Transportation world conference]
* [http://thefutureishere.economist.com/blogs-future-transportation.html The Economist: Future of Transportation]
* [https://www.ictc-ctic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ICTC_-Autonomous-Vehicles-and-The-Future-of-Work-in-Canada-1-1.pdf Autonomous Vehicles and the Future of Work in Canada] (81 page research paper by ICTC in 2017)

----

From '''Philip''':

Two topics of interest to me:

# How likely is that we will make a transition to shared self-driving transportation? How do we handle going on errands, taking the dog or quick trips to the store.
# How do we avoid using motorized transport of any kind? Possible ways of doing so would be through densification and relaxed zoning leading to more walkable cities, and more virtual commuting.

''Comment by'' '''Jess''': A friend of my son is scheming to build one of these [https://www.fastcompany.com/90207375/the-worlds-first-high-tech-eco-village-will-reinvent-suburbs "high-tech eco-villages"] on Gambier Island. They also have plans for a pretty exotic way to get back and forth from Gambier to Vancouver.

PS: I just received an email from Greyhound Canada that they are cancelling all service in Western Canada as of Oct this year. I guess the provincial government may provide subsidies and/or other companies may step in. But very sad.

OFC Meeting 8

2022-09-23T18:02:09Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''14 Aug 2018''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion of future Futures Topics===
</center>

Feel free to add your thoughts here!

From '''Jess''': a couple items that have caught ''my'' interest recently, for obscure reasons:
* [http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=215 "The Myth Of Emergence: Magic Masquerading as Science"] (Needless to say, I hope, I didn't like this much.)
* [https://medium.com/s/futurehuman Future Human] (on Medium.com)
* [https://medium.com/@jessh.brewer/whence-hence-78f5602ab420 Whence Hence?] (my little screed on Medium.com, more or less summarizing my course)

OFC Meeting 9

2022-09-23T18:01:48Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''11 Sep 2018''':
===CHINA: "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"===
Moderator: '''[mailto:kebarnes@shaw.ca Keith Barnes]'''
</center>

Because China is such a huge and diverse country (and topic), I have decided to focus our discussion on the following broad areas. If there are other areas the group would like to focus on, please raise them -- either during the discussion or afterwards.

'''The economy''':

'''Infrastructure''':

'''Space exploration''':

'''Militarization''':

'''Freedom of choice and other social issues''':

(from [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess]): '''Art, literature and aesthetics''': I recently read "''The Three Body Problem''", a best-selling (in China) science fiction novel published in 2006 that won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 2015. It confused me bigly.

(From the fertile mind of '''ROLAND'''): I just want to give a "heads up" about the Chinese economy.

This is an economy that has expanded at a rate never seen before in modern economic history -- hence we are truly in unexplored territory.

Being the pessimist that I am -- I believe that the Chinese economy may be riddled with massive amounts of malinvestment.

Malinvestment is mostly the result of very cheap, readily available credit and poor regulation and oversight of lending institutions.

Much of the economic disaster of 2008 can be traced back to malinvestment.

An example of malinvestment would be the well known Chinese "Ghost Cities" and buildings that were demolished before they were even occupied.

The Chinese version of communism has managed to keep a lid on things through the use of coercive measures such as jailing investors who dared to short the Chinese stock market during a major downturn.

The Chinese form of government makes it more difficult for westerners to accurately assess the possible risks of the Chinese economy. They are not always forthcoming with bad news -- even if it is true.

This brings me to the opinion that the possibility of the Chinese economy imploding -- possibly due to a trade war with the USA.

Hope this was useful -- Can't wait to see you all at the OFC boardroom on September 11. -- '''Roland'''

Hi all, Unfortunately I won't be able to attend this time, since I'm out of town. Have a great meeting! -- '''Henk'''

Here's an interesting summary: [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/china-s-economic-outlook-in-six-charts "This is what China's economy looks like in 2018 - in 6 charts"] -- '''Jess'''

OFC Meeting 10

2022-09-23T18:00:35Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''09 Oct 2018''':
===Toward a FUTURE MERITOCRACY===
Moderator: '''[mailto:2rolandu3@gmail.com Roland Uphoff]'''

A MANIFESTO for a more IDEAL FUTURE SOCIETY

by Roland Uphoff
</center>

At our last meeting Keith Barnes presented a talk on the ''Future of China'', and one of the subjects he brought up was the development of a new Chinese society built on ''Meritocracy''. The name of this new meritocracy was "Social Credit". Now for some of us of a certain age, the first thing that comes to mind when we hear "Social Credit" is the days of WAC(ky)Bennett and Bill Vander Zalm. Chinese Social Credit has nothing in common with those politicians....

Chinese Social Credit is basically a social system where ''Merit is Rewarded''. The more you do to help your community, family, neighbourhood or country, the more merit points you get. Therefor it is '''NOT''' the most devious, clever, well-connected, or sociopathic members of society who reap the greatest rewards -- rather, it is the most ''virtuous'' among us that are elevated to high social status.

I have thought ''a lot'' about what Keith said and my thoughts have lead me to this manifesto. In my opinion Democracy is a broken ruin of what it was. Tribalism has replaced consensus and the people who rule us have simply become a bunch of partisan hacks that spend most of their time soliciting campaign contributions for their election to office and put their service to the people far down the list of priorities. The high courts that are supposed to act like neutral referees are also highly politicized hacks owing their loyalty to whichever side appointed them.
Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this and, as always, it is the common people that suffer.
A better way forward would be to have the most virtuous and dedicated people serving as leaders and judges rather than the the inept, power hungry hacks that pass for politicians and judges.

Consumerism (see my previous article on "STUFF") has become the guiding force of our lives and as the saying goes "He who dies with the most toys - wins". But really... are we actually winning? What have we given up in order to be better consumers.... The Bankers, Businessmen, Media and Libertarians among us tell us that "Greed is Good". Now step back a bit - is that ''really'' true? Perhaps there is another way...

Let's look at some of the phrases that shape and describe our society. These are common phrases we have all heard one time or another.

There's a sucker born every minute.

Nice guys finish last.

Buyer Beware.

Too big to fail. (banks)

Heads - I win;   Tails - you lose

Might makes right

Winner takes all

Those (race, culture, religion) people are a bunch of violent, ignorant, depraved thugs who should be thrown out of the country and must be kept out at all cost. (Build that wall!!!)

It is OK to put down '''''Those People''''' because they are a different (race, religion, sexual orientation) than us and after all, we are so superior to everyone else. (''e.g.'' white supremacy)

Old white men are the only ones who have ''the Right Stuff'' to make important decisions for our people.

Rational thought, science and advanced learning are ''Dangerous'' - better to just believe what our leaders tell us - and whatever you do ''Don't believe the FAKE NEWS media'', just believe what the leaders tell you... and Please don't think for yourself - there are old white men that will do that for you.

I could certainly go on and on... but the point is that this is what I see as a reflection of what our society has become. I truly believe we can do WAY better than that, therefore I will present my ideas for what I see as a better way forward into the future.

How about a society where ''everyone'' gets to contribute to the best of their ability and circumstances. Where young children are schooled in the need for harmony and cooperation and are rewarded for their efforts. Where the elderly are seen as sources of wisdom and experience to teach the young and help them avoid the mistakes they made in their lives. Where no person is considered disposable or lesser because of a disability or difference.

How would you like to live in a society where you could leave the doors to your house or car unlocked - where alarm and security companies go broke. A place where you could leave your valuables out on the street and the first person who saw them would knock on your door to return them to you. If you were injured or lost everyone would make it a priority to help you. If you (or your child) was being bullied or harassed - then the nearest person would come to offer assistance. What if no one complained if you got a free ride on the bus because you couldn't afford the fare. What if you didn't have to worry about housing or feeding your children and ''no one'' was living in their car, in the street,or in a tent on a vacant lot.

What would you do if everyone got a guaranteed minimum income that could be repaid with community service. What if community service didn't involve picking up trash by the side of the road - but instead offered training in useful skills that you could put to use building infrastructure, helping the elderly, maintaining hospitals and schools, becoming a volunteer in case of disaster relief. What if you learned practical skills like first aid - how tend and maintain a fire pump - run a rescue boat, or a backhoe or bulldozer to fight fires or shore up a dam in case of a flood. Perhaps you have mechanical skills and could help to maintain a stock of emergency generators or you have a pilot's license and could volunteer with search and rescue. What if there were agencies that could match your skills to a specific need? Perhaps you don't have any marketable skills as such - you could work alongside skilled workers who could share their knowledge as you perform tasks that require a lower skill level. One day you might be able to perform the tasks as well as your teacher - then ''you'' become the teacher. Retired people with specialized skills could be recruited as a volunteer corps that would teach the young the skills they have learned.

In my opinion far too much human potential is wasted in our society - the Businessmen want to make sure that there is a ready supply of cheap labour available so they can maximize profits and consume more more more... Is it moral? - NO, but it is good business. What if Businesspersons were actually more concerned with the greater good of the society they live in - rather than maximising profits for themselves and the super rich. What if banks loaned money to people who were going to use it for improving the lives of people rather than Businessmen who use manipulative practices to convince ordinary people to consume more to help line their pockets.

What if the media didn't spend most of its efforts trying to convince you to buy more STUFF and actually stuck to telling the truth rather than constantly yelling "Hooray for our Side". What if movies and television showed people being kind and helpful instead of being greedy, debauched and corrupt. Media can have a massive influence on society - both good and bad, but most media simply looks for the easiest way to make the most money.... Morals, kindness, selflessness, and decency are in direct conflict with a society based on selfishness and consumerism. Replace selfishness and greed with liberal doses of kindness and generosity. Let the Media promote virtue and cooperation. Let's tell the people about ways they can help the environment, ways they can volunteer or mentor, ways to conserve and become more self reliant. The corporate media has been strangely silent on the subject of climate change or the possibility of a future where the human race may be competing with superior artificial intelligence. It is not in the interest of the corporate media to warn you of things that may harm you. Remember, the media were reassuring investors that the American stock markets were a great place to invest in August 2008.

Let me tell you about the way this society would function.

If you were born into this meritocracy, your parents wouldn't have to worry about any medical bills for the delivery and care - All medical costs would be paid by the state. One parent would be allowed a full year off of work with a guaranteed minimum salary paid by the state to care for the newborn. The parent might also have a supplemental income as part of their employment contract.

The child would enter a state sponsored early education center that would provide day care as well as early education. Each child would be thoroughly assessed as to their abilities (walking, talking, comprehension) and given appropriate levels of instruction. Children would be assessed for their strengths and weaknesses. The strengths would be nurtured and the weaknesses would be corrected if possible. A child's progress in early education would be limited only by their ability to comprehend or perform a certain task. Competition would be limited for younger children and cooperation stressed. Cooperation, empathy, selflessness and kindness would be stressed in all activities.

All children would be given a good education by teachers who would be more highly valued than we have in our current society. Children would be evaluated every [insert a number] years and those that excel in certain fields in the arts, sciences, or sport would be sent to special development schools where they can reach their maximum potential. The program would be paid for by the state, but the student would owe "Merit Points" to the state that could be applied by doing meritorious service. University students would be admitted on the basis of academic ability, as well as their "Personal Merit Score". No one would be able to buy or bribe their way into a university. All tuition would be covered by the state and the state would subsidise students living away from home.

Employers would be encouraged to take on students, apprentices, interns etc. as employees at the age of eighteen, but students should be encouraged to take field trips to various employers, or have the employers tell the students what they are looking for in an employee. In my Meritocracy, business, government, and education would me much more tightly woven, so students will be better able to transition between school and the workplace. The student would be required to "pay back" the employer that trained them by agreeing to work for the same employer for four years. The education system would also consult all employers to see what type of training should be provided to the students. This way, the students entering the workforce will have an easier time matching their skills to the needs of the labour market.

A member of the workforce will be expected to perform their work to a decent standard, be punctual, respectful to your employer and your fellow workers. An employee may also be required to perform extra duties during an emergency but they will be compensated with points and money. An employee can earn points by being a long term employee and taking extra training eg: first aid.

Retirees would receive a guaranteed pension from the state and would also have private pension plans or company plans. Some workers might be retired early if their job is rendered obsolete by technology or other unforeseen circumstances. Others might be required to stay on in their jobs if no qualified replacement can be found. They would be rewarded with points and money. All retirees will be required to perform a set amount of volunteer work every month. The work would probably involve mentoring, teaching, providing assistance or companionship.

Employers will earn "Merit Points" for their company by meeting certain criteria. They must value their employees and treat them fairly. They must meet strict government mandated emission standards and any failure to do so will result in a loss of "Merit Points" as well as a fine. Intelligent use of energy and resources will be monitored by the state and extra points can be earned for good performance.

I thought I had more to say, but since I am "inventing" a lot of this as I go along, I have hit a wall...

It would be easy to dismiss my ideas as "pie in the sky" optimism, or perhaps an authoritarian dystopia, but I hope that when we meet on October 10, that I can encourage my fellow members of the Oceanside Futurological Congress to take the more difficult path of trying to IMPROVE on my ideas. These ideas are not set in stone by any means, and could use a lot of improvement, but I don't want them to be dismissed outright as unworkable. Of course, if these ideas were to be implemented on any scale larger than a commune, they would have to be introduced slowly so that people could adapt.

I will say once again that the society we are presently living in is not fulfilling the needs of the majority. Certain groups with our present society have benefited greatly from our consumer driven corporatist society, but it has failed to provide true quality of life to the vast majority.

To whoever reads this manifesto - try to keep an open mind, and by all means offer improvements. - '''Roland'''

----

Comments from '''Jess''':

I'm guessing that all of us would love to live in that society, and have been doing what we could to nudge this one closer to those ideals. It's nice to see a comprehensive summary of how we'd like our society to be, as a partial antidote to cynicism and despair. As Bobby Kennedy said, "''Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.''"

Putting aside the question of, "How do we get there from here?" for the moment, there is one danger that must be addressed: how to prevent a Chinese-style "social credit" system from being co-opted and used as a tool of oppression by cynical manipulators bent only on establishing and maintaining their own supremacy. The civil rights record of China suggests that this is at least partly the case there already; but we can entertain the hope that there is also a genuine desire in China to use their system to make things better for everyone, as described by Roland above. I don't know. I would like to believe so, but what we would like to believe is always suspicious due to "confirmation bias". I guess we will see what happens in China, over which we have no control.

Coming back to the question of, "How do we get there from here?" I urge everyone to think of possible strategies and tactics to help our society move in this direction. Don't give up. As Margaret Mead famously said, "''Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.''"

PS: Check this out: [https://medium.com/basic-income/its-time-for-technology-to-serve-all-humankind-with-unconditional-basic-income-e46329764d28 A call for Universal Basic Income] with the statistics to back it up.

PPS: Here's a trick to help us avoid some of the traps of elitist consumerism: "[http://jick.ca/?p=455 Gradient Hopping]" (also on [https://medium.com/@jessh.brewer/gradient-hopping-9d21bc558c4f medium.com]).

PPPS: Check out my screed on Medium.com about the [https://medium.com/@jessh.brewer/political-placebo-effect-602042b868d2 Political Placebo Effect]!

Cheers -- '''Jess'''

----
Comments from '''Philip''':

Thanks Roland for the many good suggestions. If we could change the individualistic ethos of our era to one of we-are-all-in-this-together we would more likely get to the world you wish for. This is of course not just a concept - it is a literal fact - we are all together on this smallish planet in space and the biggest risks, climate change, full scale nuclear war, AI, synthetic biology will affect the whole world. When will people understand this?

----

OFC Meeting 11

2022-09-23T18:00:17Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''13 Nov 2018''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion of future Futures Topics===
Feel free to add your thoughts here!
</center>

===AGENDA ITEMS===

* '''Do we go on'''? Attendance has been "spotty" for the last few months -- partly due to "vacation season" no doubt -- but if interest is dwindling we should just stop; some indications of commitment [or lack of same] would be timely at this stage. Please use our [https://doodle.com/poll/qzaz4z4epwzb7vcm Doodle Poll] to indicate whether you plan to come to OFC meetings in 2019!
* If so, '''where'''? The Qualicum Foods Board Room has been a nice venue, but it is a long journey for our Nanaimo members, not all of whom have cars. Another possibility might be the meeting room of the North Branch of the Nanaimo Public Library, on Hammond Bay Rd.
* And '''when'''? Is 2-4 PM on the second Tuesday of each month still our optimal choice?
* For the December and subsequent meetings, '''what would be some good topics'''?
* For our non-driving Nanaimo members: if you are in need of a ride to the meeting, please contact [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess] -- I might be willing to pick up and deliver, just to keep a quorum. :-)

===POSSIBLE TOPICS===

* Add your suggestion here!
* Humans are social animals but our contemporary culture, our universities, workplaces and city design, operate as if the most important unit is the individual. In what ways could we evolve our culture, taking advantage of our knowledge of human psychology (eg what makes happy) and the future symbiosis with intelligent, connected machines (smartphones on steroids) so that it is more community based, more inline with our evolutionary nature? Everyone could have a virtual AI assistant which would know everything about the person (though certain things could be kept secret) and based on privacy settings some of the information would be shared with other AI assistants. Depending on interests and location and time the assistants would suggest and then arrange direct personal interactions (like facebook but more intelligent, not directed to advertising revenue and taking much less time). A university would proactively select prospective students via their assistants. The university would, proactively, or when requested, give all possible assistance to their students to help them have good social lives and complete their courses. Note that this topic relates back to Roland’s ideas on a future meritocracy. -- '''Philip'''
* There is much talk of sending a mission to Mars these days. We could discuss whether Mars is the best destination for the first off-Earth colony, as opposed to the Moon or free-flying O'Neill space colonies. We could also discuss whether this fascination represents a "pioneering spirit" or simply an acknowledgement that we have no intention of cleaning up our act here on Earth -- and if the latter, whether ET would be wisest to exterminate us before we get any further. If you're ''especially'' interested in this topic, the [http://outerspaceinstitute.ca Outer Space Institute] is having a [http://outerspaceinstitute.ca/launch2018.html conference at UBC] on Nov 16. Sounds interesting!
* There is also a talk at UBC next Wed evening entitled [https://pitp.phas.ubc.ca/quant_lect/2018/Fisher.html "Are we quantum brains, or merely clever robots?"] If anyone wants to go, let [mailto:jess@jick.net Jess] know.

===MINUTES (of sorts -- maybe more like SECONDS?)===

7 people showed up. All were in favour of continuing the OFC. The QF Board room is a pretty nice venue. Keith will prepare a letter requesting a continuation of our reservation for 2019.

There was some discussion of inviting some younger folks to join up (or at least visit), in order to establish some intergenerational communication; after all, when they are trying to deal with this mess, we'll all probably be dead. :-)

We also toyed with the idea of dispensing with "discussion leaders" and just having a free discussion every month (on a predetermined topic, of course) so that more than one short, organized presentation could be accommodated. There was no clear decision on this, but we all recognized the value of at least one person being thoroughly prepared to discuss the topic.

Most of us were interested in the idea of inviting "experts" to give us presentations, if we can successfully recruit same. An alternative might be to play TED talks on a laptop; we'll see if that gives satisfactory results.

Possible topics for next month included "The Robots are Coming", "Accelerated Evolution of ''H. sap.''" (by genetic manipulation), "The Future of Free Speech" and "How to Avoid Crippling Pessimism" (this was in response to my bleak outlook, I think).

For next month, I THINK we decided on a reprise of my disastrous inaugural presentation on "Demographics and Immigration" -- perhaps I can do a better job showcasing [https://www.gapminder.org/ GapMinder.org and Hans Rosling] this time. (Also a great example of How to Be Optimistic!)

-- '''[mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess]'''

OFC Meeting 12

2022-09-23T17:59:56Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''11 Dec 2018''':
===POPULATION and IMMIGRATION===
-- '''Jess'''
</center>

This is partly a reprise of my attempt to cover FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS in that disastrous first talk at Serious Coffee, but this time with a focus on the hot-button issue of IMMIGRATION.

Some questions from that first talk (did we answer any of them?) are:

* How mobile will people be in 20 years?
* Which people?
* What will be the effects of such mobility?
* Where will most of them live in 20 years?
* Where will Canadian immigrants come from? [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2017028-eng.htm Here's some Census data.] -- [https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time Compare the USA data.]
* Where will Canadian emigrants (if any) go?
* How many people can Canada hold?
* What would be the ideal number of Canadians?
* How many people can the Earth hold?
* What would be the ''ideal'' number of humans on Earth?
* What will be the number of ''robots'' per person?
* What will the ''age'' distribution look like in 20 years?
* How old can we ''get''?
* How old do you ''want'' to get?
* Will we just upload into Virtual Reality?

Some possible sources of ideas and information on this subject:

* ''The Limits to Growth'' (classic 1972 book whose gloomy predictions have been largely borne out)
* ''The Population Bomb'' by Paul & Anne Ehrlich in 1968, predicting catastrophes that have '''not''' happened.
* The ''Gapminder World'' website at ''http:''www.gapminder.org'' which explains why they haven't & probably won't. (See especially the videos entitled "How Not to be Ignorant" and "DON'T PANIC: The Facts About Population". You should also buy the book, "''Factfulness''".)

'''Philip''': from a comment in the New York Times: "''The migration crisis is the population bomb going off.''"

'''Jess''': That's exactly the sort of myth propagation Rosling warns against -- especially from journalists, whose job it is to make the news sound more dramatic than it is.

===MINUTES:===

IIRC, 8 people showed up for this meeting.

We probably have the Board Room again for 2019, thanks to Keith!

Anne Toby responded positively to my invitation to come speak on human genetic manipulation sometime this year. I will let everyone know when she picks a date; I presume we can accommodate her any time!

The January meeting may have lower attendance; we will just have a brainstorming session again.

Tentative topic for February: "''Passion and Purpose'' -- what drives us to do what?"

Another candidate topic: "''Privileging Ethics'' -- can enlightenment recapture government?"

It was suggested that some '''TED talks''' are as good as an OFC session. I agree, so I started a list on the [[OFC EXTRAS]] page, which see. (Please add your favourites!)

OFC Meeting 13

2022-09-23T17:59:34Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''12 March 2019''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion of future Futures Topics===
(Evidently there were no meetings in Jan or Feb 2019.)
</center>

Feel free to add your thoughts here!

Two items that may be of some interest:
# The future of '''''Music''''' and
# The future of '''''Big Pharma''''' and the role of medical ethics and the Law.

In addition, in our efforts to get much ''younger people'' to attend our meetings, we might want to visit the local high school (Kwalikum) to see if it has a ''student debate group'' and if so whether some of its members might like to join us on the second Tuesday of each month! If I am able to make it tomorrow I will try and elaborate a little more on these items. -- '''Keith'''

You might want to revisit our previous "free-for-all" or the one before that to harvest some ideas.

===AGENDA ITEMS===

* Guest Speakers: [mailto:annelink@telus.net Anne Toby], CEO of the ElderCollege, has expressed an interest in coming to some of our meetings, and possibly in giving us a talk on her specialty, ''Human Genetics''. (Can humans modify themselves enough, or in time, to "cure" their tendency to destroy everything around them?)
* Feel free to add an Agenda item here!
* '''Philip''': continue discussion from last meeting: Optimism and pessimism about the future.

----

==='''Philip''''s notes from the meeting Mar 12, 2019===

Attendees: Keith, Anne, Lin, Jed, Jess, Philip, Hank and Jane

I started by asking about Jed’s views of our (Boomer) generation. He said that his generation (Millennials) were caught in an economic crunch, especially with regard to housing. He said there is even some guilt about wanting more.

Vancouver has become a city of autocrats -- long time residents sitting on multi-million dollar properties, wealthy older people and people in their twenties with inherited wealth. One millennial is trying to establish a tech community on Gambier Island NW of Vancouver, offering cheap land for people wanting to establish small tech businesses or work remotely. Steven Pinker has shown that by many measures, such as the numbers of people in extreme poverty, things have improved over recent decades but the housing crunch in the cities in the developed world where the good jobs are plentiful is not one of them. Governments seem to working at cross purposes, working to rapidly increase the population while not ensuring enough housing is built.

Keith made interesting first hand observations on the rationing in Britain in the 1940’s. Both gasoline and meat, amongst other things, were strictly rationed. Jess observed that meat was used sparingly in Japan -- more like a garnish. Keith said we could go back to rationing to tackle climate change. In this way and others we should go to a “war footing" to drastically reduce our production of greenhouse gases.

Anne mentioned genetic manipulation and CRISPR and how exciting the new field of ''epigenetics'' is. The latter explains how some diseases start when an environmental factor such as a chemical turns on undesirable genes. Jess and I posed the question of the philosophical difference between eugenics and genetic manipulation.

Jess suggested we discuss the future of farming next time. Will the still growing population of humans continue to get enough food given that soil degradation, climate change and excessive monoculture all work to decrease production and resilience?

Anne closed by observing that the world is going to be unrecognizable in 50 years.
----

Comment by '''Jess''': I suggest reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl "The Windup Girl"] by Paolo Bacigalupi to get a glimpse of one plausible future. I'm a little swamped lately with various commitments "coming due" simultaneously, so I may not be able to provide much carefully researched data on farming practices; but I have lots of "soft data" to relate -- as do we all! Let's just do another "free-for-all" with Farming as a starting point, and see if we want to revisit that topic in more depth later.

OFC Meeting 14

2022-09-23T17:59:01Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''09 April 2019''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion of future Futures Topics===
Feel free to add your thoughts here!
</center>

You might want to revisit our first, second or third "free-for-alls" to harvest some ideas.

===AGENDA ITEMS===

* [mailto:annelink@telus.net Anne Toby], CEO of the ElderCollege, came to our last meeting and made some great contributions. We hope she will soon give us a talk on her specialty, ''Human Genetics''. (Can humans modify themselves enough, or in time, to "cure" their tendency to destroy everything around them?)
* '''Keith''' suggested we might soon discuss
# the future of '''''Music''''',
# the future of '''''Big Pharma''''' and the role of '''''Medical Ethics and the Law'''''.
# In addition, in our efforts to get much '''''younger people''''' to attend our meetings, we might want to visit the local high school (Kwalikum) to see if it has a ''student debate group'' and if so whether some of its members might like to join us on the second Tuesday of each month!
* In our last meeting '''Philip''' led off the discussion with a reminder about the central issue of Optimism ''vs.'' Pessimism about the Future.
* This time '''Jess''' will make a few initial remarks about '''Farming in the Future''', from which we will doubtless move on to who-knows-what. Recommended ''reading'': [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl "The Windup Girl"] by Paolo Bacigalupi. Recommended ''viewing'': "AGCC heretic" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pou3sGedeK4 Freeman Dyson] explains the connection between soil and carbon dioxide emissions. Here's another Dyson talk, this one given in Russia: [http://jick.net/pix/MOVIES/Dyson-eng.mp4 "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society"]. (We could probably base half a dozen OFC meetings on his various "heresies".) If you have another hour to spare, you might also enjoy watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntJouJhLM48 Living Soil], a film by the Soil Health Institute. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it ''seems'' authoritative.
* Feel free to add an Agenda item here!

OFC Meeting 15

2022-09-23T17:58:22Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''11 June 2019''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion of future Futures Topics===
Feel free to add your thoughts here!
</center>
You might want to revisit our first, second, third or fourth "free-for-alls" to harvest some ideas.

===AGENDA ITEMS===

* We are still hoping that [mailto:annelink@telus.net Anne Toby], CEO of the ElderCollege, will soon give us a talk on her specialty, ''Human Genetics''. (Can humans modify themselves enough, or in time, to "cure" their tendency to destroy everything around them?)
* Feel free to add an Agenda item here! As tomorrow's meeting is supposed to be a Free-for-All, I'm not entirely clear as why we need a start-up topic, but if the group feels we do, how about: The OPIOID CRISIS: Can't live with them! Can't live without them! -- '''Keith'''
----
The discussion ranged over many topics selected from history, current events and possible futures. Roland pointed out the parallels between today's oligarchy in the USA and the "'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) robber barons]]'''" of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries and how the people rose up to stop their rule, in the guise of labor unions and progressive politicians. Jess remarked that if a peaceful progressive revolution was possible in the 1930s it must have been because the electorate expressed their frustration effectively, and that if it could happen spontaneously then, it might happen again, despite today's more sophisticated technology of public manipulation. We went on to cover lots of other topics, but without a recording I have forgotten most of the details. Perhaps someone else can fill in some blanks?

David Brown mentioned the meeting last Friday (07 June) of his "current affairs" group at the downtown Nanaimo Public Library 10-noon, itself a spin-off from the VIU-sponsored "Pint of Science" meetings, which sound great except that the venue tends to be very noisy for intelligible discussions. Some of the topics from that meeting were discussed further in our OFC meeting; this might become a pattern!

At the end we discussed the issue of whether to just continue with "free-for-all" discussions or to try to at least lead off with a topical presentation by a volunteer, which would encourage input to the corresponding page on this wiki, including suggested reading material or other relevant events. To that end, Philip agreed to start the next meeting with a presentation on '''DEMOCRACY in the FUTURE''' -- are humans capable of governing themselves? -- '''Jess'''

OFC Meeting 22

2022-09-23T17:46:46Z

WikiSysop: WikiSysop moved page OFC Meeting 19 to OFC Meeting 22: mislabelled

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''11 Feb 2020''':
===="Free-for-All" Discussion====
Feel free to add your thoughts here!

You might want to revisit our previous "free-for-alls" to harvest some ideas.
</center>

===AGENDA ITEMS===

* [mailto:dougbzowy@gmail.com Doug Bzowy] suggests a discussion of '''''pensions''' in Canada'' and other social benefits such as guaranteed income. He summarizes, "Brief review of pensions in Canada morphing into assets held by pension funds and internationally by sovereignty funds and private equity funds and the transition of these funds investments away from hydrocarbons to alternate energy. Potential to restructure economies given the capital held by the above."
* If others are interested, [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess] can bring some plots of income distributions and an explanation for why it follows a Boltzmann distribution except at the low and high ends. Or you can just go look at [https://slideplayer.com/slide/8204661/ these guys' PowerPoint presentation].
* If you want "certified accurate" data on the USA, check out the [https:/usafacts.org/ USA Facts] website.
* The Current Events discussion group that has been meeting monthly in the Nanaimo Library is disbanding   <tt>:-(</tt>   Please join me in welcoming any members of that group to join OFC!
* This raises a recurring question: do we wish to maintain our loose mandate to focus on ''The Future'' (a few decades down the road) and be merely tolerant of the inevitable inclusion of lessons from past and present, or should we explicitly adopt a more activist interest in ''The Present'' while maintaining a perpetual awareness of what sort of ''Future'' this might lead to? Food for discussion.
* Here's a cool game that teaches [https://ncase.me/trust/ THE EVOLUTION OF TRUST] using Game Theory.
* Here are some data from the Canadian Carbon Pricing legislation, comparing the greenhouse effectiveness per molecule of different gases:
[[File:ghglist-0.png]] [[File:ghglist-1.png]]

OFC Meeting 22

2022-09-23T17:46:01Z

WikiSysop:

OFC Meeting 23

2022-09-23T17:43:28Z

WikiSysop:

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----
<center>
'''10 March 2020''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion===

Feel free to add your thoughts here!

You might want to revisit our previous "free-for-alls" to harvest some ideas.
</center>

====AGENDA ITEMS====

* The ''Current Events'' group that meets in the downtown Nanaimo Public Library 10-12 AM on March 12 will feature a discussion of a book by Kate Raworth, ”'''''Doughnut Economics''': 7 Way to Think Like a 21st Century Economist''”. This might be good reading for our group too. ''Comment from [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess]'': I have the book from the Library; I find it self-congratulatory, poorly written and off-putting. You may prefer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJL-cM8gb4 this video], the condensed presentation at [https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ Kate's website] or (if you can tolerate scholarly papers) [https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oxpp/oppccr/2012/00000008/00000001/art00001# her OXFAM paper from 2012].
* The Democratic primaries in the USA may capture our attention this month. [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess] sees the situation as hopeless. What do you think?
* The '''[https://thefulcrum.us/voting/calling-for-balanced-ballots-to-break-the-partisan-duopoly Balanced Ballot]''' (or '''[https://www.negative.vote/ Negative Vote]''') may offer Americans some relief from the two-party duopoly. It will probably take years to catch on.
* A hopeful item: [https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Banks-Holding-47-Trillion-Assets-Sign-Up-To-Climate-Action.html Banks holding $47 trillion assets sign up to climate action].
* It's unlikely we will avoid discussing the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated stock market crash. Let's just try to avoid hysteria.   <tt>:-)</tt>   [https://flowingdata.com/2020/03/10/visual-explanation-of-exponential-growth-and-epidemics/ Here] is a nice tutorial on Exponential Growth and the Logistic Curve. It reassures one to know that the number of cases will never grow to over 7.5 billion.   <tt>;-)</tt>

OFC Meeting 23

2022-09-23T17:42:26Z

WikiSysop: /* "Free-for-All" Discussion */

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''March 2020''':
[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----
<center>
''' 2020''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion===

Feel free to add your thoughts here!

You might want to revisit our previous "free-for-alls" to harvest some ideas.
</center>

====AGENDA ITEMS====

* The ''Current Events'' group that meets in the downtown Nanaimo Public Library 10-12 AM on March 12 will feature a discussion of a book by Kate Raworth, ”'''''Doughnut Economics''': 7 Way to Think Like a 21st Century Economist''”. This might be good reading for our group too. ''Comment from [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess]'': I have the book from the Library; I find it self-congratulatory, poorly written and off-putting. You may prefer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJL-cM8gb4 this video], the condensed presentation at [https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ Kate's website] or (if you can tolerate scholarly papers) [https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oxpp/oppccr/2012/00000008/00000001/art00001# her OXFAM paper from 2012].
* The Democratic primaries in the USA may capture our attention this month. [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess] sees the situation as hopeless. What do you think?
* The '''[https://thefulcrum.us/voting/calling-for-balanced-ballots-to-break-the-partisan-duopoly Balanced Ballot]''' (or '''[https://www.negative.vote/ Negative Vote]''') may offer Americans some relief from the two-party duopoly. It will probably take years to catch on.
* A hopeful item: [https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Banks-Holding-47-Trillion-Assets-Sign-Up-To-Climate-Action.html Banks holding $47 trillion assets sign up to climate action].
* It's unlikely we will avoid discussing the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated stock market crash. Let's just try to avoid hysteria.   <tt>:-)</tt>   [https://flowingdata.com/2020/03/10/visual-explanation-of-exponential-growth-and-epidemics/ Here] is a nice tutorial on Exponential Growth and the Logistic Curve. It reassures one to know that the number of cases will never grow to over 7.5 billion.   <tt>;-)</tt>

OFC Meeting 23

2022-09-23T17:38:12Z

WikiSysop: WikiSysop moved page OFC Meeting 20 to OFC Meeting 23 without leaving a redirect: Mislabelled

[[OFC Meetings]] --> here
----

<center>
'''March 2020''':
==="Free-for-All" Discussion===

Feel free to add your thoughts here!

You might want to revisit our previous "free-for-alls" to harvest some ideas.
</center>

====AGENDA ITEMS====

* The ''Current Events'' group that meets in the downtown Nanaimo Public Library 10-12 AM on March 12 will feature a discussion of a book by Kate Raworth, ”'''''Doughnut Economics''': 7 Way to Think Like a 21st Century Economist''”. This might be good reading for our group too. ''Comment from [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess]'': I have the book from the Library; I find it self-congratulatory, poorly written and off-putting. You may prefer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJL-cM8gb4 this video], the condensed presentation at [https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ Kate's website] or (if you can tolerate scholarly papers) [https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oxpp/oppccr/2012/00000008/00000001/art00001# her OXFAM paper from 2012].
* The Democratic primaries in the USA may capture our attention this month. [mailto:jessh.brewer@gmail.com Jess] sees the situation as hopeless. What do you think?
* The '''[https://thefulcrum.us/voting/calling-for-balanced-ballots-to-break-the-partisan-duopoly Balanced Ballot]''' (or '''[https://www.negative.vote/ Negative Vote]''') may offer Americans some relief from the two-party duopoly. It will probably take years to catch on.
* A hopeful item: [https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Banks-Holding-47-Trillion-Assets-Sign-Up-To-Climate-Action.html Banks holding $47 trillion assets sign up to climate action].
* It's unlikely we will avoid discussing the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated stock market crash. Let's just try to avoid hysteria.   <tt>:-)</tt>   [https://flowingdata.com/2020/03/10/visual-explanation-of-exponential-growth-and-epidemics/ Here] is a nice tutorial on Exponential Growth and the Logistic Curve. It reassures one to know that the number of cases will never grow to over 7.5 billion.   <tt>;-)</tt>

Mark Lakata's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T23:19:31Z

WikiSysop:

I found Ken by noticing his posting in Berkeley Physics department advertising trips to Switzerland! Well it was either that or Illinois. At this point Ken was already retired, so I didn't actually have too much
technical face time with him (his postdocs David Armstrong, Roy Bossingham, Tom Case and Peter Kammel were the ones that kept me on the path to graduating). In fact, during my thesis defense, he just sat and smiled the whole time, and didn't torture me with any questions at all. I couldn't ask for a nicer advisor.

I remember dinners at his house in Point Richmond with his wife Penny, and how he liked to go home early and talk of his dog and his sailboat mast!

The following pictures were taken at my first stay with the Crystal Barrel in 1994. Ken let me stay at his home for a night or 2 before I got access to the hostel at CERN.

<center>
[[File:Ken_at_home_in_Thoiry_July_1994.jpg|200px|frame|Ken at home in Thoiry, July 1994]]
[[File:Ken_at_Crystal_Barrel_July_1994.jpg|200px|frame|A nice shot of the back of Ken's head at the Crystal Barrel, July 1994]]
[[File:Tom_Ken_and_Peter_at_CERN_hostel_May_1996.jpg|200px|frame|Here, the Berkeley group (Tom Case, Ken Crowe, Peter Kammel, and I) is headed to a restaurant across the border to celebrate the end of another beam run.]]
[[File:Peter_Tom_and_Ken_in_St.Genis_Restaurant_May_1996.jpg|200px|frame|And here we are are the restaurant in St Genis-Pouilly, France.]]
</center>

Mark Lakata's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T23:17:53Z

WikiSysop:

I found Ken by noticing his posting in Berkeley Physics department advertising trips to Switzerland! Well it was either that or Illinois. At this point Ken was already retired, so I didn't actually have too much
technical face time with him (his postdocs David Armstrong, Roy Bossingham, Tom Case and Peter Kammel were the ones that kept me on the path to graduating). In fact, during my thesis defense, he just sat and smiled the whole time, and didn't torture me with any questions at all. I couldn't ask for a nicer advisor.

I remember dinners at his house in Point Richmond with his wife Penny, and how he liked to go home early and talk of his dog and his sailboat mast!

The following pictures were taken at my first stay with the Crystal Barrel in 1994. Ken let me stay at his home for a night or 2 before I got access to the hostel at CERN.

<center>
[[File:Ken_at_home_in_Thoiry_July_1994.jpg|400px|frame|Ken at home in Thoiry, July 1994]]
[[File:Ken_at_Crystal_Barrel_July_1994.jpg|400px|frame|A nice shot of the back of Ken's head at the Crystal Barrel, July 1994]]
[[File:Tom_Ken_and_Peter_at_CERN_hostel_May_1996.jpg|400px|frame|Here, the Berkeley group (Tom Case, Ken Crowe, Peter Kammel, and I) is headed to a restaurant across the border to celebrate the end of another beam run.]]
[[File:Peter_Tom_and_Ken_in_St.Genis_Restaurant_May_1996.jpg|400px|frame|And here we are are the restaurant in St Genis-Pouilly, France.]]
</center>

File:Peter Tom and Ken in St.Genis Restaurant May 1996.jpg

2022-09-01T23:16:26Z

WikiSysop: Peter, Tom and Ken in ST. Genis restaurant, May 1996

== Summary ==
Peter, Tom and Ken in ST. Genis restaurant, May 1996

File:Tom Ken and Peter at CERN hostel May 1996.jpg

2022-09-01T23:15:07Z

WikiSysop: Tom, Ken and Peter at CERN hostel, May 1996

== Summary ==
Tom, Ken and Peter at CERN hostel, May 1996

Mark Lakata's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T23:13:30Z

WikiSysop:

I found Ken by noticing his posting in Berkeley Physics department advertising trips to Switzerland! Well it was either that or Illinois. At this point Ken was already retired, so I didn't actually have too much
technical face time with him (his postdocs David Armstrong, Roy Bossingham, Tom Case and Peter Kammel were the ones that kept me on the path to graduating). In fact, during my thesis defense, he just sat and smiled the whole time, and didn't torture me with any questions at all. I couldn't ask for a nicer advisor.

I remember dinners at his house in Point Richmond with his wife Penny, and how he liked to go home early and talk of his dog and his sailboat mast!

The following pictures were taken at my first stay with the Crystal Barrel in 1994. Ken let me stay at his home for a night or 2 before I got access to the hostel at CERN.

<center>
[[File:Ken_at_home_in_Thoiry_July_1994.jpg|frame|Ken at home in Thoiry, July 1994]]
[[File:Ken_at_Crystal_Barrel_July_1994.jpg|frame|A nice shot of the back of Ken's head at the Crystal Barrel, July 1994]]
[[File:Tom_Ken_and_Peter_at_CERN_hostel_May_1996.jpg|frame|Here, the Berkeley group (Tom Case, Ken Crowe, Peter Kammel, and I) is headed to a restaurant across the border to celebrate the end of another beam run.]]
[[File:Peter_Tom_and_Ken_in_St.Genis_Restaurant_May_1996.jpg|frame|And here we are are the restaurant in St Genis-Pouilly, France.]]
</center>

File:Ken at Crystal Barrel July 1994.jpg

2022-09-01T23:11:41Z

WikiSysop: Ken Crowe at Crystal Barrel, July 1994

== Summary ==
Ken Crowe at Crystal Barrel, July 1994

File:Ken at home in Thoiry July 1994.jpg

2022-09-01T23:10:26Z

WikiSysop: Ken Crowe at hom in Thoiry, July 1994

== Summary ==
Ken Crowe at hom in Thoiry, July 1994

Mark Lakata's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T23:09:19Z

WikiSysop: Created page with "I found Ken by noticing his posting in Berkeley Physics department advertising trips to Switzerland! Well it was either that or Illinois. At this point Ken was already retir..."

I found Ken by noticing his posting in Berkeley Physics department advertising trips to Switzerland! Well it was either that or Illinois. At this point Ken was already retired, so I didn't actually have too much
technical face time with him (his postdocs David Armstrong, Roy Bossingham, Tom Case and Peter Kammel were the ones that kept me on the path to graduating). In fact, during my thesis defense, he just sat and smiled the whole time, and didn't torture me with any questions at all. I couldn't ask for a nicer advisor.

I remember dinners at his house in Point Richmond with his wife Penny, and how he liked to go home early and talk of his dog and his sailboat mast!

The following pictures were taken at my first stay with the Crystal Barrel in 1994. Ken let me stay at his home for a night or 2 before I got access to the hostel at CERN.

<center>
[[File:Ken_at_home_in_Thoiry_July_1994.jpg|left|frame|Ken at home in Thoiry, July 1994]]
[[File:Ken_at_Crystal_Barrel_July_1994.jpg|right|frame|A nice shot of the back of Ken's head at the Crystal Barrel, July 1994]]

[[File:Tom_Ken_and_Peter_at_CERN_hostel_May_1996.jpg|left|frame|Here, the Berkeley group (Tom Case, Ken Crowe, Peter Kammel, and I) is headed to a restaurant across the border to celebrate the end of another beam run.]]
[[File:Peter_Tom_and_Ken_in_St.Genis_Restaurant_May_1996.jpg|right|frame|And here we are are the restaurant in St Genis-Pouilly, France.]]
</center>

Don Fleming's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T22:53:30Z

WikiSysop:

I first met Ken Crowe in the spring of 1972,
if memory serves. I had just joined the
the UBC Chemistry Dept. in July 1971,
drawn by the construction then underway
of the TRIUMF cyclotron. I arrived from
the Niels Bohr Institute with an interest
in nuclear reactions and nuclear structure
physics, the subject also of my PhD thesis
in Nuclear Chemistry from UC Berkeley. A
chance phone call from my former PhD supervisor (Joe Cerny) caused me to radically
change direction.

Joe told me that he had just attended
a seminar given by Ken Crowe on the subject of "Muonium Chemistry". It sounded
intriguing so I called Ken and went down to
meet him. I was ushered into his office by
the comely Corrine. That was my first impression of Ken, good taste in secretaries!
My next one was that he was used to being in charge but at the same time I found
his enthusiasm about this developing new
field of muonium chemistry and his high
praise for his grad student who was carrying the ball at the time, Jess Brewer, infectious. I "signed on" for the long haul. Jess
was putting literally half-liter Mylar buckets of solutions of different reagents in the
backward muon beam at the old 184" and
measuring muon spin relaxation rates in order to determine chemical rate constants for
Mu, the lightest H atom; it was a bit crude
but it was a start, and led to some early
papers in the field, co-authored with Fredy
Gygax, who was a PDF (from "SIN") in
Ken’s group at the time.

After his PhD, Jess spent a year or so as
a PDF with Ted Bowen, Burt Pifer and the Arizona group, developing "Arizona muons" (later called
"surface muons"). As an item of historical graffiti, we all did the last non-medical experiments at the old 184", the first studies of Mu reactivity in low pressure gases.

Jess then came to UBC, first to the Chemistry Dept., drawn both by TRIUMF and the steelhead fishing in BC, and he, I and my first grad student, Dave Garner (who also contributed at the 184") got µSR started at TRIUMF on the old (and recently dismantled) M20 beam line. Money was tight (it still is) and we had to beg and borrow what we needed to get operational. Ken Crowe once again entered the picture and played a huge role in lending a helping hand. He procured about 25 (yellow) quads for us from the decay (Anderson?) muon channel of the old Chicago synchrocyclotron (some of which are still in use on the M15 beam line), a bending magnet from Cal Tech (the first bender was a dipole magnet "Patty Jane" from Harvard, which David Measday of UBC Physics arranged for us) and two huge old (selenium rectifier) power supplies from the Bevatron at Berkeley. It all arrived at TRIUMF one summer day in 1974 and two years later we were operational, with help from Toshi Yamazaki and Ken Nagamine as well, who were spending time at TRIUMF then.

The first µSR spectrum taken in Canada was recorded (on polaroid!) in July 1976. Today µSR at TRIUMF is an integral part of the new "CMMS" (Centre for Molecular and Materials Science), along with beta-NMR at ISAC, but likely neither would have come to pass without Ken Crowe's initial interest and the huge help he provided. It may sound inadequate but does bear repeating: "Thanks, Ken!" in gratitude. Until we meet again.

<center>
[[File:1stmsr75.jpg|center|frame|First µSR histogram in Canada: 11 July 1975 with Don Fleming, Toshi Yamazaki, Ken Nagamine and Jess Brewer]]
</center>

File:1stmsr75.jpg

2022-09-01T22:50:26Z

WikiSysop: First µSR time histogram in Canada: 11 July 1975

== Summary ==
First µSR time histogram in Canada: 11 July 1975

Don Fleming's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T22:40:55Z

WikiSysop: Created page with "I first met Ken Crowe in the spring of 1972, if memory serves. I had just joined the the UBC Chemistry Dept. in July 1971, drawn by the construction then underway of the TRIUM..."

I first met Ken Crowe in the spring of 1972,
if memory serves. I had just joined the
the UBC Chemistry Dept. in July 1971,
drawn by the construction then underway
of the TRIUMF cyclotron. I arrived from
the Niels Bohr Institute with an interest
in nuclear reactions and nuclear structure
physics, the subject also of my PhD thesis
in Nuclear Chemistry from UC Berkeley. A
chance phone call from my former PhD supervisor (Joe Cerny) caused me to radically
change direction.

Joe told me that he had just attended
a seminar given by Ken Crowe on the subject of "Muonium Chemistry". It sounded
intriguing so I called Ken and went down to
meet him. I was ushered into his office by
the comely Corrine. That was my first impression of Ken, good taste in secretaries!
My next one was that he was used to being in charge but at the same time I found
his enthusiasm about this developing new
field of muonium chemistry and his high
praise for his grad student who was carrying the ball at the time, Jess Brewer, infectious. I "signed on" for the long haul. Jess
was putting literally half-liter Mylar buckets of solutions of different reagents in the
backward muon beam at the old 184" and
measuring muon spin relaxation rates in order to determine chemical rate constants for
Mu, the lightest H atom; it was a bit crude
but it was a start, and led to some early
papers in the field, co-authored with Fredy
Gygax, who was a PDF (from "SIN") in
Ken’s group at the time.

After his PhD, Jess spent a year or so as
a PDF with Ted Bowen, Burt Pifer and the Arizona group, developing "Arizona muons" (later called
"surface muons"). As an item of historical graffiti, we all did the last non-medical experiments at the old 184", the first studies of Mu reactivity in low pressure gases.

Jess then came to UBC, first to the Chemistry Dept., drawn both by TRIUMF and the steelhead fishing in BC, and he, I and my first grad student, Dave Garner (who also contributed at the 184") got µSR started at TRIUMF on the old (and recently dismantled) M20 beam line. Money was tight (it still is) and we had to beg and borrow what we needed to get operational. Ken Crowe once again entered the picture and played a huge role in lending a helping hand. He procured about 25 (yellow) quads for us from the decay (Anderson?) muon channel of the old Chicago synchrocyclotron (some of which are still in use on the M15 beam line), a bending magnet from Cal Tech (the first bender was a dipole magnet "Patty Jane" from Harvard, which David Measday of UBC Physics arranged for us) and two huge old (selenium rectifier) power supplies from the Bevatron at Berkeley. It all arrived at TRIUMF one summer day in 1974 and two years later we were operational, with help from Toshi Yamazaki and Ken Nagamine as well, who were spending time at TRIUMF then.

The first µSR spectrum taken in Canada was recorded (on polaroid!) in July 1976. Today µSR at TRIUMF is an integral part of the new "CMMS" (Centre for Molecular and Materials Science), along with beta-NMR at ISAC, but likely neither would have come to pass without Ken Crowe's initial interest and the huge help he provided. It may sound inadequate but does bear repeating: "Thanks, Ken!" in gratitude. Until we meet again.

<center>
[[File:1stMuSR.jpg|center|frame|First µSR in Canada: 11 July 1975]]
</center>

Tom Case's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T22:30:00Z

WikiSysop: Created page with "I was a graduate student of Ken's from around 1988 till 1993. I already had a background in solid state physics and building MRI scanners but had little experience in particl..."

I was a graduate student of Ken's from around 1988 till 1993. I already had a background in solid state physics and building MRI scanners but had little experience in particle detectors or anything in the MeV to GeV range.

There were many projects at Berkeley searching for the next highest energy particle (at the time the Top quark) or maybe something you could spend your graduate career {\sl not\/} finding, like dark matter, but I just wanted to get well grounded in all the "mundane", "well-known" particles in-between (and actually witness a lot of them myself. Ken had been there laying the foundations so people could scale higher peaks and was still working on many interesting projects in parallel on these "older" particles. In Ken's group I could brush up on atomic physics, nuclear physics, weak interactions, strong interactions, fusion research, heavy ion collisions... all at the same time. I could watch anti-protons eat protons at CERN and wander around all the old and new experiments and hear the history from Ken.

At PSI I could watch muons cause 5 of the 6 hydrogen fusion reactions and finally get past the lies I was told in Junior high school about how the sun works. (We did figure we could witness the 6th reaction, the one that actually runs the sun and has never been seen on earth, but it would take about 10 years).

I enjoyed sitting with Ken doing simple experiments that really made principles sink in; like sticking a pad of paper between a radiation source and detectors and changing the particle energy by adding and removing pages. I could tell he loved the ultimate simplicity behind a good scientific measurement and he really liked to share such things.

At CERN Ken and Penny lived nearby in a village in France. It was always a great pleasure to have dinner with them and talk about something other than physics. Usually with a wildflower arrangement on the table that Penny had picked in the surrounding hills that day. Sometimes we would head off to some small old french village nearby for lunch and enjoy the views of the French alps. Equally nice was visiting the hexagonal house on stilts on the San Francisco bay with Ken's boat docked out back.

I learned a great deal from Ken and his students and colleagues and will remember those times fondly.

'''Tom Case'''

Senior Staff Scientist 
''Xradia Inc.'' 
Pleasanton CA

Feb 28, 2012

Bob Budnitz's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T22:23:08Z

WikiSysop:

I came to the Rad Lab (later the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) in the fall of 1967, a brand-new, wet-behind-the-ears postdoc. I had been hired by Don Miller, a high-energy physicist and physics professor at UC-Berkeley who had planned a Bevatron experiment and needed two post-docs (and a couple of graduate students) to pull it off.

The experiment, which involved a complicated piece of apparatus sitting in a neutral external beam outside the Bevatron, was planning to study the <math>K^0_{\mu 3}</math> "charge asymmetry" in the decay of <math>K^0_L</math> mesons to <math>\pi</math>-<math>\mu</math>-<math>\nu</math> –– the difference between the decay rates to the end states <math>(\pi^+ + \mu^- + \bar{\nu}_\mu)</math> and <math>(\pi^- + \mu^+ + \nu_\mu)</math>. This difference is an indication of ''CP'' violation and the effect is tiny, less than half a percent. Don hired me and Bill Ross as the two new post-docs, and then he brought in Bob McCarthy as the student whose PhD would be this experiment, and Jess Brewer as a younger student who would learn the ropes helping with the experiment. We also hired a very fine electrical-electronic technician, Bob Graven, and a handyman-worker Mike Jones. It took us about a year to build the apparatus, and the plan was for the 6 of us, with Don Miller supervising, would do the year-long experiment. But just as we were setting it up in the beam, Miller left! He decided to take a faculty job at Northwestern Univ. in Evanston, Illinois (north of Chicago), and he basically disappeared forever, albeit he did come around every few months to say hello.

Enter ''Ken Crowe''. Our little group's offices in Bldg. 50 were fortuitously in the second-floor wing where Ken and his group resided. So from the start all of us made close friendships with the Crowe group's gang of postdocs and students, although Ken himself was not involved with us much at first. Ken's group was doing experiments at the 184-inch Cyclotron, and they were involved with very different physics and apparatus issues, and very different administrative issues too. So we saw a lot of the Crowe gang informally, although we didn't work with them.

But Don Miller had precipitously departed, and we were sometimes in desperate need of advice from an experienced physicist –– just the sort of advice that a faculty advisor and group leader is there to provide but that Don Miller was now not providing. As a new postdoc, I was often pretty far adrift, way over my head trying to run a complicated experiment without the supervision that was supposed to be the whole point of a postdoc position! (Bill Ross, the other postdoc, was similarly affected. So were the students, McCarthy and Brewer.) And to make matters worse, we learned the hard way that it was going to take more than the 6 of us to run that experiment day-and-night for a year or more. Bluntly, we were short-handed too, and remained so for the duration, a great strain.

Fortunately, as I said, enter ''Ken Crowe''. Ken took the little group under his wing –– and especially took me under his wing. He provided the physics advice we sought, "times ten", but more importantly he provided the intellectual environment and the nurturing environment too that are an essential part of any complicated project like the experiment that we were trying to do. His personality was fantastic, as was his physics insight. As was his way of dealing with each of us individually as a special person, each with his own "issues". Ken basically "saved us" in terms of getting that physics experiment done right, but also in terms of making the experience educational, enjoyable, and useful.

Jess Brewer, in case anybody reading this doesn't know it, went from the entry-level-student job with our Bevatron experiment to become Ken's thesis student at the 184-inch, and later to become one of Ken's closest physics colleagues and friends in muon-spin-rotation/relaxation/resonance studies.

Although after that Bevatron experiment I promptly went on to do other very different things (I became a nuclear engineer), that wonderful two-year-plus experience with Ken Crowe remains a vital part of why it all worked out for me. I for one will never forget it.

<center>
[[File:e95bev69.jpg|center|frame|Bevatron Experiment 95: McCarthy, Budnitz, Entis, Graven and Brewer, 1969]]
</center>

File:E95bev69.jpg

2022-09-01T22:18:52Z

WikiSysop: Bevatron Experiment 95 in 1969: McCarthy, Budnitz, Entis, Graven and Brewer

== Summary ==
Bevatron Experiment 95 in 1969: McCarthy, Budnitz, Entis, Graven and Brewer

Bob Budnitz's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T22:17:28Z

WikiSysop:

I came to the Rad Lab (later the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) in the fall of 1967, a brand-new, wet-behind-the-ears postdoc. I had been hired by Don Miller, a high-energy physicist and physics professor at UC-Berkeley who had planned a Bevatron experiment and needed two post-docs (and a couple of graduate students) to pull it off.

The experiment, which involved a complicated piece of apparatus sitting in a neutral external beam outside the Bevatron, was planning to study the <math>K^0_{\mu 3}</math> "charge asymmetry" in the decay of <math>K^0_L</math> mesons to <math>\pi</math>-<math>\mu</math>-<math>\nu</math> –– the difference between the decay rates to the end states <math>(\pi^+ + \mu^- + \bar{\nu}_\mu)</math> and <math>(\pi^- + \mu^+ + \nu_\mu)</math>. This difference is an indication of ''CP'' violation and the effect is tiny, less than half a percent. Don hired me and Bill Ross as the two new post-docs, and then he brought in Bob McCarthy as the student whose PhD would be this experiment, and Jess Brewer as a younger student who would learn the ropes helping with the experiment. We also hired a very fine electrical-electronic technician, Bob Graven, and a handyman-worker Mike Jones. It took us about a year to build the apparatus, and the plan was for the 6 of us, with Don Miller supervising, would do the year-long experiment. But just as we were setting it up in the beam, Miller left! He decided to take a faculty job at Northwestern Univ. in Evanston, Illinois (north of Chicago), and he basically disappeared forever, albeit he did come around every few months to say hello.

Enter ''Ken Crowe''. Our little group's offices in Bldg. 50 were fortuitously in the second-floor wing where Ken and his group resided. So from the start all of us made close friendships with the Crowe group's gang of postdocs and students, although Ken himself was not involved with us much at first. Ken's group was doing experiments at the 184-inch Cyclotron, and they were involved with very different physics and apparatus issues, and very different administrative issues too. So we saw a lot of the Crowe gang informally, although we didn't work with them.

But Don Miller had precipitously departed, and we were sometimes in desperate need of advice from an experienced physicist –– just the sort of advice that a faculty advisor and group leader is there to provide but that Don Miller was now not providing. As a new postdoc, I was often pretty far adrift, way over my head trying to run a complicated experiment without the supervision that was supposed to be the whole point of a postdoc position! (Bill Ross, the other postdoc, was similarly affected. So were the students, McCarthy and Brewer.) And to make matters worse, we learned the hard way that it was going to take more than the 6 of us to run that experiment day-and-night for a year or more. Bluntly, we were short-handed too, and remained so for the duration, a great strain.

Fortunately, as I said, enter ''Ken Crowe''. Ken took the little group under his wing –– and especially took me under his wing. He provided the physics advice we sought, "times ten", but more importantly he provided the intellectual environment and the nurturing environment too that are an essential part of any complicated project like the experiment that we were trying to do. His personality was fantastic, as was his physics insight. As was his way of dealing with each of us individually as a special person, each with his own "issues". Ken basically "saved us" in terms of getting that physics experiment done right, but also in terms of making the experience educational, enjoyable, and useful.

Jess Brewer, in case anybody reading this doesn't know it, went from the entry-level-student job with our Bevatron experiment to become Ken's thesis student at the 184-inch, and later to become one of Ken's closest physics colleagues and friends in muon-spin-rotation/relaxation/resonance studies.

Although after that Bevatron experiment I promptly went on to do other very different things (I became a nuclear engineer), that wonderful two-year-plus experience with Ken Crowe remains a vital part of why it all worked out for me. I for one will never forget it.

[[File:e95bev69.jpg|Bevatron Experiment 95: McCarthy, Budnitz, Entis, Graven and Brewer, 1969]]

Bob Budnitz's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T22:06:54Z

WikiSysop: Created page with "I came to the Rad Lab (later the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) in the fall of 1967, a brand-new, wet-behind-the-ears postdoc. I had been hired by Don Miller, a high..."

Jess Brewer's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T18:58:13Z

WikiSysop:

In 1969, after completing Bevatron Experiment 95 on ''CP'' violation in <math>K^0_{\mu 3}</math> decay, Don Miller (my first supervisor) left Berkeley (and what was then still called LRL) to become head of the Physics Department at Northwestern, leaving me to hunt for a new supervisor and a new PhD topic. It was the best choice anyone ever forced me to make. [I often advise graduate students to change advisors as soon as they learn the ropes, even if they get along famously with their first choice, because the first choice is based on limited information.] In my case, I had to choose between working for Owen Chamberlain (a famously nice guy and a Nobel laureate) on hypernuclei or for Ken Crowe (a notorious slavedriver) on muon depolarization in liquids, using methods now known as µSR.

I chose the latter because the whole idea of using an exotic particle physics phenomenon like ''P'' violation in <math>\mu^+</math> decay to probe "ordinary" materials seemed ''really cool'', like being a character in my own science fiction novel! I went down to campus and asked Alan Portis if he thought muons could make a contribution to solid state research analogous to that of NMR; he said he seriously doubted it. That sounded to me like a challenge! (A few years later Alan came up and gave us all lectures on condensed matter physics so we could at least pretend to know what we were doing.) When I learned that the muonium (Mu) atom could be used as a double for H atoms to study otherwise inaccessible chemical reactions, that clinched it - I was in!

Then I set about getting to know Ken. I found this easy, actually, because all one really needed to realize was that Ken was a force of nature, obeying consistent rules of behavior like any other such force. When he set out on a mission, he gathered everything and everyone at his disposal to accomplish that mission as well as humanly possible (or better). Whether it was winching in the jib to reach that buoy before the next boat or working out the time evolution operators for the muonium spin system, perfection was the only acceptable - nay, the only ''permissable'' performance.

For some reason, many people found this hard to digest. I speculate that this was because they interpreted Ken's intolerance of imperfection as personal intolerance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who earned Ken's respect, on the water or in the lab, learned that his loyalty and generosity had no bounds, once he was sure that it was not wasted. Between our friendship and my observations of his devotion to his family, Ken taught me a lesson I have never forgotten:

<center>
''Love is meaningless if it has to be earned; ''

''respect is meaningless if it doesn't.''
</center>

That being said, he could be daunting. The first two times I came into his office to give an update on my progress modeling muonium depolarization in liquids, I got thrown out in a hail of insults, all (in retrospect) richly deserved. The third time I was ''sure'' I knew what I was talking about, and when he started to give me a hard time I told him to shut up and listen! From that moment forward he treated me like an equal, and a respectful partnership began that lasted for decades.

The rest, as they say, is history. A fine scientific history it is, but this is a space for personal stories, so I will save the details for another page, saying only that I once was asked by the Nobel committee if there were anyone I'd like to nominate; I suggested Ken, for his key role in creating the field of µSR where I have toiled for the last 4 decades and had a wonderful time. Of course, just to keep it interesting I also nominated several others with whom Ken might have balked at sharing the stage in Stockholm. I think he would have gotten a chuckle out of that. :-)
<center>
[[File:CroweJedRebecca84.jpg|400px|frame|Ken with Rebecca and Jed Brewer, ca. 1984]]

[[File:Ken+Penny2009.jpg|400px|Ken and Penny beside their house in Point Richmond, Jan. 2009]]
</center>

File:CroweJedRebecca84.jpg

2022-09-01T18:36:03Z

WikiSysop: Ken Crowe with Rebecca and Jed Brewer in our basement at W. 9th in Vancouver, ca. 1984

== Summary ==
Ken Crowe with Rebecca and Jed Brewer in our basement at W. 9th in Vancouver, ca. 1984

File:Ken+Penny2009.jpg

2022-09-01T18:33:17Z

WikiSysop: Ken and Penny outside their house in Point Roberts, Jan 2009

== Summary ==
Ken and Penny outside their house in Point Roberts, Jan 2009

Jess Brewer's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T18:31:48Z

WikiSysop:

In 1969, after completing Bevatron Experiment 95 on ''CP'' violation in <math>K^0_{\mu 3}</math> decay, Don Miller (my first supervisor) left Berkeley (and what was then still called LRL) to become head of the Physics Department at Northwestern, leaving me to hunt for a new supervisor and a new PhD topic. It was the best choice anyone ever forced me to make. [I often advise graduate students to change advisors as soon as they learn the ropes, even if they get along famously with their first choice, because the first choice is based on limited information.] In my case, I had to choose between working for Owen Chamberlain (a famously nice guy and a Nobel laureate) on hypernuclei or for Ken Crowe (a notorious slavedriver) on muon depolarization in liquids, using methods now known as µSR.

I chose the latter because the whole idea of using an exotic particle physics phenomenon like ''P'' violation in <math>\mu^+</math> decay to probe "ordinary" materials seemed ''really cool'', like being a character in my own science fiction novel! I went down to campus and asked Alan Portis if he thought muons could make a contribution to solid state research analogous to that of NMR; he said he seriously doubted it. That sounded to me like a challenge! (A few years later Alan came up and gave us all lectures on condensed matter physics so we could at least pretend to know what we were doing.) When I learned that the muonium (Mu) atom could be used as a double for H atoms to study otherwise inaccessible chemical reactions, that clinched it - I was in!

Then I set about getting to know Ken. I found this easy, actually, because all one really needed to realize was that Ken was a force of nature, obeying consistent rules of behavior like any other such force. When he set out on a mission, he gathered everything and everyone at his disposal to accomplish that mission as well as humanly possible (or better). Whether it was winching in the jib to reach that buoy before the next boat or working out the time evolution operators for the muonium spin system, perfection was the only acceptable - nay, the only ''permissable'' performance.

For some reason, many people found this hard to digest. I speculate that this was because they interpreted Ken's intolerance of imperfection as personal intolerance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who earned Ken's respect, on the water or in the lab, learned that his loyalty and generosity had no bounds, once he was sure that it was not wasted. Between our friendship and my observations of his devotion to his family, Ken taught me a lesson I have never forgotten:

<center>
''Love is meaningless if it has to be earned; ''

''respect is meaningless if it doesn't.''
</center>

That being said, he could be daunting. The first two times I came into his office to give an update on my progress modeling muonium depolarization in liquids, I got thrown out in a hail of insults, all (in retrospect) richly deserved. The third time I was ''sure'' I knew what I was talking about, and when he started to give me a hard time I told him to shut up and listen! From that moment forward he treated me like an equal, and a respectful partnership began that lasted for decades.

The rest, as they say, is history. A fine scientific history it is, but this is a space for personal stories, so I will save the details for another page, saying only that I once was asked by the Nobel committee if there were anyone I'd like to nominate; I suggested Ken, for his key role in creating the field of µSR where I have toiled for the last 4 decades and had a wonderful time. Of course, just to keep it interesting I also nominated several others with whom Ken might have balked at sharing the stage in Stockholm. I think he would have gotten a chuckle out of that. :-)

[File:CroweJedRebecca84.jpg|left|frame|Ken with Rebecca and Jed Brewer, ca. 1984]
[File:Ken+Penny2009.jpg|right|frame|Ken and Penny beside their house in Point Richmond, Jan. 2009]

Jess Brewer's memories of Ken Crowe

2022-09-01T18:28:42Z

WikiSysop: Created page with "In 1969, after completing Bevatron Experiment 95 on ''CP'' violation in <math>K^0_{\mu 3}</math> decay, Don Miller (my first supervisor) left Berkeley (and what was then still..."

In 1969, after completing Bevatron Experiment 95 on ''CP'' violation in <math>K^0_{\mu 3}</math> decay, Don Miller (my first supervisor) left Berkeley (and what was then still called LRL) to become head of the Physics Department at Northwestern, leaving me to hunt for a new supervisor and a new PhD topic. It was the best choice anyone ever forced me to make. [I often advise graduate students to change advisors as soon as they learn the ropes, even if they get along famously with their first choice, because the first choice is based on limited information.] In my case, I had to choose between working for Owen Chamberlain (a famously nice guy and a Nobel laureate) on hypernuclei or for Ken Crowe (a notorious slavedriver) on muon depolarization in liquids, using methods now known as µSR.

I chose the latter because the whole idea of using an exotic particle physics phenomenon like ''P'' violation in <math>\mu^+</math> decay to probe "ordinary" materials seemed ''really cool'', like being a character in my own science fiction novel! I went down to campus and asked Alan Portis if he thought muons could make a contribution to solid state research analogous to that of NMR; he said he seriously doubted it. That sounded to me like a challenge! (A few years later Alan came up and gave us all lectures on condensed matter physics so we could at least pretend to know what we were doing.) When I learned that the muonium (Mu) atom could be used as a double for H atoms to study otherwise inaccessible chemical reactions, that clinched it - I was in!

Then I set about getting to know Ken. I found this easy, actually, because all one really needed to realize was that Ken was a force of nature, obeying consistent rules of behavior like any other such force. When he set out on a mission, he gathered everything and everyone at his disposal to accomplish that mission as well as humanly possible (or better). Whether it was winching in the jib to reach that buoy before the next boat or working out the time evolution operators for the muonium spin system, perfection was the only acceptable - nay, the only ''permissable'' performance.

For some reason, many people found this hard to digest. I speculate that this was because they interpreted Ken's intolerance of imperfection as personal intolerance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who earned Ken's respect, on the water or in the lab, learned that his loyalty and generosity had no bounds, once he was sure that it was not wasted. Between our friendship and my observations of his devotion to his family, Ken taught me a lesson I have never forgotten:

<center>
''Love is meaningless if it has to be earned;

respect is meaningless if it doesn't.''
</center>

That being said, he could be daunting. The first two times I came into his office to give an update on my progress modeling muonium depolarization in liquids, I got thrown out in a hail of insults, all (in retrospect) richly deserved. The third time I was ''sure'' I knew what I was talking about, and when he started to give me a hard time I told him to shut up and listen! From that moment forward he treated me like an equal, and a respectful partnership began that lasted for decades.

The rest, as they say, is history. A fine scientific history it is, but this is a space for personal stories, so I will save the details for another page, saying only that I once was asked by the Nobel committee if there were anyone I'd like to nominate; I suggested Ken, for his key role in creating the field of µSR where I have toiled for the last 4 decades and had a wonderful time. Of course, just to keep it interesting I also nominated several others with whom Ken might have balked at sharing the stage in Stockholm. I think he would have gotten a chuckle out of that. :-)

[File:CroweJedRebecca84.jpg|left|Ken with Rebecca and Jed Brewer, ca. 1984]
[File:Ken+Penny2009.jpg|right|Ken and Penny beside their house in Point Richmond, Jan. 2009]