Well, "edge of science" has some ambivalence, it could mean both "close to the boundary of science and not-science/pseudoscience", which we could call "parascience", or it could mean "bleeding edge of science".
If we go with the first meaning, this indicates there are areas close to the edge of science where falsification is difficult, and even if we do a divide with falsifiability, it stands to argue falsifications close to "the edge" are maybe not as rock-solid as somewhere else, e.g. when the effects are kinda small or we have multiple somewhat probable assumptions for the variables. Which translates to something of a sliding rule of falsifiability, with an arbitrary cut-off. E.g. a p-value of 0.05, though that one has some problems...
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6006
Which means we either go with science where there is no true falsification, or with not-science where there is some falsification.
If we go with the second, this could indicate that it helps for science to drop falsifiability for a time to progress.
Both meanings indicate that falsifiability is a strong indicator for most kinds of science, but there are areas of science where it's not that diagnostic (first meaning) or where we can't use it (second meaning). Both meanings indicate there is something more to science then just falsifiability and repeatability. Nevermind there is also pathological science that shows both, at least for a time.
But then, there are other indicators some work is scientific, e.g. coherence, e.g. we judge hypothesis by their adherence to things like conservation of energy etc. Till we see the exception clauses, e.g. CP violation:
]]>Please note that the late John Paul II was suffering from Parkinson's, where we already use something called a "brain pacemaker"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_pacemaker
While this is far from emulating parts of the brain, I guess emulating things like the breathing reflex etc. is not that far off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_implant
Now emulating autonomic responses might seem somewhat trivial, but keep in mind fast breathing is one of the ways we measure our arousal, so even something trivial as fixing breath and heart rate might change emotional responses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal
If we go for implants that help with e.g. memory retrieval, there are likely bigger effects on emotions, since memory retrieval is quite tied to emotional processing. When you think about embarassing episodes, you filter things out, and/or you don't think about it often, and/or you have perfect memory of them because of high arousal, but what if some implant plays in the perfect lifelog for the Alzheimer's patient, or you have to decide on some on-the-fly edits to keep embarassment low?
So, maybe we are about to see some rules akin to the Byzantine ones where a disabled emperor was unfit for the job, which meant assasination was not the only way to moderate absolutism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_mutilation_in_Byzantine_culture
never mind quite some of those returned after a nose job:
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/justinian.html
As for the bioconservatist stance, I don't insist on MPTP injections for them to know what Parkinson's feels like, but I guess one month on a high potency typical neuroleptic is minimum for anybody rambling about brain pacemakers etc. destroying humanity and virtue in suffering.
]]>That we will even burn up 1/4 of the possible hydrocarbons before it all shuts down is also not likely. The world financial system will all collapse way before either can happen. The reset will not be based on the globalization of money or resources, but national or possibly regional systems. There will not be multi-billions to spend on a new energy system. There will likely not even be enough to manage the storage of all the nuclear waste already spread around the world.
Techies have a hard time accepting that they are NOT going to save the world, but are definitely going to have a hand in it's continued destruction as they have had for the last 100 years. In 50 years, cities will be abandoned. Tech will be back to the 1800s. There is no revival and glorious future ahead and by 2512, there will probably only be tribes wandering the desert earth.
]]>Puh-leeze! We are never, ever going back to the 1800s. Time's arrow points resolutely forward. We're not going back to a pure hunter-gatherer lifestyle either, no matter how many nukes fly.
I agree that fusion is problematic, and (absent a miracle) it depends on a massive scale of civil and grid engineering that's going to be freaking hard to maintain, given how many problems we're having maintaining our existing infrastructure (I get boringly repetitious about the biggest problems being political, not technical, but you're right. Techs can't enable idiot politics forever. At some point, we need to force our leaders to grow up or get out).
So we have a Long Decline. Thing is, we don't go backward. We'll decline progressively forward For example: we've got the most efficient cookstoves on the planet right now, they're getting better at Moore's Law speeds, and the new stoves are cheaper and better than old pot-bellied stoves. What's driving the revolution is a desire to cut indoor cooking smoke as a cheap public health measure, and it's working. So even if we decline back to wood stoves, they'll be much better than the ones before, because people are only now figuring out how fire works and how to maximize cook-stove efficiency cheaply. This doesn't even go to cheap solar cookstoves, which weren't around a century ago.
With the military, we'll see the death of $200 million stealth fighters, but they're already being replaced by much cheaper drones. Army bases used to have spotter planes over them, and now they fly blimps. We'll have AK-47s as long as there's an ammunition industry to feed them (because they're cheap to make), but once they're gone, surprise! there are high tech black powder guns out there that perform extremely well, courtesy a couple of decades of black-powder deer hunting seasons. Nobody will be shooting Brown Besses, no matter how bad it gets. (Before you ask, yes, I doubt people will give up on cartridge ammo. The only advantage black powder weapons have is that they're more durable and easier to keep fed under low tech circumstances)
Similarly, we won't go back to land line phones. I'll bet we figure out how to make cell phones at the city or village levels. If nothing else, people will cobble together short-wave radios out of remarkably simple junk. A while ago, we figured out here that a city could probably put together a 1980s level computer using only raw material inputs, so I doubt computers will go away entirely either, if the global electronic industry collapses.
This is the critical point: with billions of people in the world innovation will continue, even as things fall apart. The future may be as "primitive" as the 1800s, but it won't look much like the 1800s.
If we nuke ourselves back to the metaphorical Stone Age, we won't go back to hunting and gathering either entirely. Farming and goat herding allow people to live in areas that are effectively inaccessible to hunter-gatherers, and I'm pretty sure that, no matter how bad things get, people will save a few goats and some seeds. That's all it takes to restart that life style, and it won't look much like the neolithic, either.
]]>Actually, going back to a pure HG lifestyle would mean major technological developments, especially since most of the historical prey species are long extint and we'd have to find new ones. Personally, I guess pigs are nice, but non-trivial to kill.
You just have to look at the history of Paleo-Eskimo cultures, where the contemporary Inuit or Thule people are only about 1000 years old, to see innovations and its effects.
]]>The basic point, though, was that hunting and gathering only works if there's enough present THAT YOU CAN EAT for you to survive. The neat trick about farming or goatherding is that it lets you take resources you can't eat (dirt, shrub leaves) and turn them into things you can eat (a garden, milk products). This is why farmers and herders can live at higher densities than can hunter gatherers, under most circumstances. Places like Polynesia could not have been colonized without agriculture, and I wonder if parts of the Eurasian steppes required herding before people could really thrive out there.
Make no mistake: hunting and gathering as a survival lifestyle is the best, especially for an individual or a small group. People adept at hunting and gathering can survive all sorts of crap, at least in the short run. A civilization crashing probably won't go back to a small population of hunter-gatherers though. I suspect it will go back to peasants instead, with some people claiming the land, while other people tame a herd and bug out.
]]>Actually, that might be kind of cool. Suppose there's a fad for this in, say, the 23rd century; it could be hundreds of years old by 2512. I don't know how popular nomadic stories of the steppes are in Eurasia, but we've got plenty of retro fantasies about Native American tales over here.
I can imagine various tribes moving around the restored American plains, hunting Neo-Beefalo with laminate bows from almost-period hardly-genetically-engineered horses; this might be a moderately reasonable subculture. There are folks into the subsistence lifestyle in Alaska today; if we ever see large areas elsewhere becoming less populated I can see historical recreationists getting into nomadic lifestyles.
]]>"Hole food! Hole food! Rat! Rat! Rat-onna-stick! Rat-in-a-bun! Get them while they're dead!"
Err, sorry, just got carried away. As for the pigeons, while pigeon pie may not to everyone's taste, at least not to some friends I talked to, they have something of a reputation for being a delicatesse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squab_(food)
For the farming/herding, I wholeheartedly agree on that one, AFAIR the factor with population densities was something on the order of hundred, though most early (and later) agriculturalists had quite a problem with protein defiency. I just wanted to point out that IMHO our notions of "the simple life" of HG are mistaken; my personal acquaintance with reenacters and run-ins with the notorious ADHD project(1) have not exactly changed that one.
(1) IMHO there are two kinds of procrastinators, those that do nothing and those that do too much...
]]>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technogypsie
as a kind of fallback mechanism or point of personal pride, though the Ancient Greek ideas of autonomia makes little economic sense (but then, coming out of the Bronze Age collapse might explain something of a survivalist mindset).
Though then, don't get me started on our crusty "you have a (insert local currency here)? my dispo is late..." crowd. Err.
BTW,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotribalism
"My use of ancient Sumerian Cuneiform in my photography is to show that prior to current times, ancient and primitive art, was created by the tribal shamans or master artists skilled in symbols, materials and sacred (fetish) items"
Major fail, I guess.
]]>As it is, animal hunting has long been the realm of either the wealthy or the outsiders, and I suspect it will remain that way.
]]>And it's going to be very messy. I just discovered that the standard plastic gallon milk cartons around here have recently changed their composition. Used motor oil will eat through the current composition. Says he who collects his used oil and taking is to the oil recycling point periodically and now gets to clear up a patch of concrete. Fortunately it's a slow leak. :(
So far the Costco branded milk cartons don't break down which gives me another reason to shop there.
]]>