In a message dated 7/11/00 12:49:18 PM Central Daylight Time, rhanson@gmu.edu
writes:
> I've defended Krugman as a good economist on this
> list. So in all fairness I should share this
> future speculation of his I just came across:
> http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/BACKWRD2.html
(Belatedly) adding my voice to the comments, it seems the numero uno mistake
Krugman makes is in assuming that practical "common sense" robotics will be
insoluble within the next 100 years. I think he's wrong -- from the
molecular level on up.
The numero two-o mistake Krugman makes is in assuming that resource prices
really will be squeezed up the way he describes. Materials and energy
science and engineering shows no sign of slowing down.
Once you throw out these two assumptions, I think the picture he painted of
2096 is badly wrong. of course, whether serious issues in these two areas
get solved in 2020 or 2060 or 2080 makes a big difference for how the 21st
century will turn out . . .
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:38 MDT