Re: world government?

["Jay Hanson" <j@qmail.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Roberto Verzola <rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org>

>I agree with some of your warnings but I disagree with your very
>pessimistic view. We have a chance, as long as we try to change early
>enough. Solar energy is practically inexhaustible. The earth is a
>closed system, except for one factor: the solar energy that keeps
>streaming in.

Studies show the US already has too many people to operate on solar
power: "Several studies indicate that to enjoy a relatively high
standard of living, America's human population should be 200 million
or less (Pimentel et al., 1994a)."
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc/Pimentel2.html With 100 million
being "ideal": http://dieoff.com/page136.htm

"The United States could achieve a secure energy future and a
satisfactory standard of living for everyone if the human population
were to stabilize at an estimated optimum of 200 million (down from
today's 260 million) and conservation measures were to lower per
capita energy consumption to about half the present level (Pimentel et
al. 1994). However, if the US population doubles in 60 years as is
more likely, supplies of energy, food, land, and water will become
inadequate, and land, forest, and general environmental degradation
will escalate (Pimentel et al. 1994, USBC 1992a)."
http://dieoff.com/page84.htm

>We simply need to learn how to do recycling better.

One can not recycle energy.

>I suggest that you review recent developments in systems science,
>particularly those that cover self-organization and complexity. A new
>view of complex systems is emerging which is not based on a master
>plan (like a socialist central plan) or a master conductor (like the
>world government that you suggest) but is simply premised on
>individual members reacting to their immediate neighbors and other
>local phenomena based on simple rulesets. Recent studies have shown
>that this alternative bottom-up view of reality can likewise give rise
>to emergent social behavior that is as complex as can be seen in the
>real world. If you accept these new insights from systems science,
>then perhaps you'll change your view about top-down approaches like a
>world government.

I am afraid this doesn't really say anything.  What exactly does this
have to do with the real world?

Jay