Re: How best to spend US$200 billion?

From: JAY DUGGER (duggerj1@charter.net)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 08:08:30 MDT

  • Next message: BillK: "Re: Query: Re: Matrioshka Brains"

    Wednesday, 11 June 2003

          Interesting question, this. This sum only exists as
    an expression of the US Goverment's will. Asking what one
    would do with this sum without taking the USG into account
    strikes me as meaningless. So rather than ask "Given the
    choice, what would you rank as the most extropic way to
    expend US$200 billion?" let me propose a variant: "Given
    the choice, what would you rank as the most extropic _and
    politically acceptable_ US$200 billion?"

    BOUNDLESS EXPANSION:
          USAF currently studies better access to space in the
    medium term (2010-2020). Whether or not government
    programs can make space travel cheap, this goal has
    military support. A breakthrough here opens up a good many
    options humanity currently lacks: off-world resources,
    space colonies, a back-up in case of local catastrophe,
    etc.
          Let's spend $40 billion on various projects,
    including (if no technical spoilers exist) building a
    space elevator (http://www.highliftsystems.com). Cheap
    access to space, no more expensive than trans-oceanic air
    travel, gives us B.E. in a literal sense.

    SELF-TRANSFORMATION:
           How would the government help individuals help
    encourage personal responsibility? It seems very unlikely
    that any constituency for this exists in the USG. Throwing
    more money at drug rehabilitation seems one way to help
    people transform themselves, and it has some precedent in
    the government's current activities. Spend $5 billion on
    this
           Education also counts as self-transformation.
    Radical new ideas in education could draw seed money. By
    "radical" I don't mean things such as charter schools or
    union-busting, but things such as the air-dropped
    computers in Steigler's "Earthweb." Greg Burch might have
    a link for real-world proposals. Spend $15 billion on all
    of these.
           For those who take a more radical view of
    self-transformation, perhaps a fat series of contracts to
    Kass and Fukuyama would help. Throwing money at them for
    heading a multi-year elite commission whose
    recommendations will never see use might indefinitely keep
    them out of public view. Say $1 billion here. :-)
          Life extension definitely falls under ST. I find it
    hard to imagine the government spending money here more
    effectively than the market. This probably reflects my
    ignorance more than the actual state of affairs. Spend $19
    billion here.
       

           I skipped DO IT SO for want of time, but also left
    $120 billion unspent. Anyone care to continue?

    Jay Dugger
    http://www.owlmirror.net/~duggerj



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 08:19:44 MDT