• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed

  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« How Science Really Works | Main | Fast Progress »

January 27, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael Vassar

I might look at the report, if I saw anything but the standard set of cliches in the clips from this post, but I don't.
Not only that; naming globalization as the only megatrend is just absurd. In addition to technology related trends, there is the aging global population and collapse of 1st world reproduction. I'm not inclined to be a doom-sayer with respect to this. Population growth and decline both attract doomsayers, and both can be accomodated, but the demographic shift is clearly a megatrend if anything is. Failure to discuss possibility of peak oil also reeks of incompetence. I don't expect capable MNT analysis from governments or NGOs, in fact, I don't even expect capable analysis of biotech or of mainstream nanotech, as such issues are usually invisible to governmental guardian types unless they can be clearly categorized as threats, but guardians who don't notice population loss are just not trying to get the facts right. The authors should go and work for the New York Times.

Tom Craver

Michael - check out the executive summary - you may not agree with everything there, but they do appear to cover aging populations, oil, etc.

They list as a certainty that there'll be plenty of oil in the ground to cover global needs. While likely accurate, that is totally misleading - making it sound as if the impact of declining oil could be minimal. The war in Iraq is far more representative of the impact, and that's just the opening act.

The comments to this entry are closed.