Which part was a strawman argument?
The part where I said the ideas/proposals/technologies are naïve when I did in fact not. They're clearly sensible ideas.
They don't have to do it to benefit all of humanity, do it without expecting a return, or drop millions of dollars to construct vertical farms. They just have to do it to ensure their own socioeconomic security, whether they're faced with a recession or a nuclear war.
As I mentioned before, for example in terms of power generation, if one state refuses to adhere to these new standards and technology (this could be North Korea, for example, and that's when we say it's 'just 1' where as we can be quite certain that there will be numerous states that do not wish to invest in these things because they have more important things to worry about) then we still run the risk of dealing with nuclear fallout from an explosion. That's just an example.
Some dangers are cross-border. Some dangers are not preventable and only can be protected against. For example, rising water levels. No matter how much we invest in this, there will be countries that will not adhere to new standards (China for example) because it's not economically viable or not economically interesting. We're better off investing our money into protecting against the rising water (large dams or dykes or what have you) than in trying to prevent this from occurring. Because it will happen regardless of what we try.
As for your points:
Most first world countries (where most money is) have enough drinking water. So, ensuring proper water is available for everyone becomes a moot point for most of them. Capital cannot be raised in places that need water. There is no incentive (outside of morality, which you said was not involved) to help these countries, thus it won't be required.
Same goes for food. The places that can afford the projects you mentioned will not incentivize them large scale because there is enough food for the most part. Yes there are people that are hungry, but there are also stores that throw away edible food because nobody bought it. So, we do not need large scale reworks of agriculture. The places that do need food could benefit, but again, capital cannot be raised there.
As for energy, the transition from 1 energy type to the other can be quite expensive. I look forward to algae fuels. I doubt it will become mainstream in my time. Lets hope it will.
Shelter.. I might be biased because I live in a country where there is more than enough shelter, even for the homeless, but we do not need ultra-durable housing. If anything we could incentivize this to lower living costs. Now that might be interesting. But I doubt many people are okay with tearing down their old houses to 'prototype' new technologies.
Materials, I suppose there is some use in that, but again, most first world countries are doing fine and don't need to recycle anything yet. Why would we use this already then? There's no incentive.
Also, 3D printers are not that mainstream yet. We cannot, say, print tools that are ready for use. We still need a portion of the work to be done manually with non-printed parts.
Internet is fine with me but wireless internet is not as advanced as you seem to think. Really.. it's kinda shitty. There's a reason that most people that want fast internet still use cables to their modem.
The education thing is fine, it's also fine if it doesn't happen. Who will pay for the libraries, though? Taxes? I think we have other things we need to spend money on too. Law enforcement is shrinking in Europe, military is shrinking in Europe, healthcares are shrinking in Europe, we are budgetting everything away because social policies are non-sustainable. Do you have proposed solutions to those problems too? To failing healthcare systems?
And you mention 'global problems' but like mentioned above, I do not believe any of these problems to be so major in first world countries that they require immediate attention.
And what's wrong with nanotech and AI, by the way?
Starvation exists in every country, even if it's just one person. They don't have to give it for free to African countries. They could just tap groups like the International Monetary Fund, and tell them to properly invest all that sweet cash in more sensible ways. You keep assuming this is for morality's sake, when I've already said this is for practicality's sake. By accelerating this proposal's realization, financial crises, geopolitical conflicts, government negligence, and international hostilities are mitigated.
Yeeeeeeeeee, no, I don't see that happening. Starvation is not a cause of death in the Netherlands simply by people not being able to buy food. And even then I doubt we will have to rework everything with super high-tech farmbots and vertical farms purely for the 'one person' or 'thousand persons' that are supposedly starving when we are throwing away large amounts of food as is.
The goal of IMF is not to invest into these types of technologies, and I don't think that will ever change.
I do not see how any of this will end financial crises, geopolitical conflicts, government negligence or international hostilities.
"When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." ~Frederic Bastiat, 19th Century
"If everyone has goods, war becomes pointless." ~catchamber, 21st Century
"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
No, war will not become pointless, because people will find other things to be mad about (we already have found those things: religion, culture, political rivalries, greed for more (which will always exist, even if everyone has goods, because you cannot ensure that everyone has the same amount) or even political insults.
Quoting something doesn't make you right, either.
Member
TokyoPewPew
Scrawl Banditta
xVampire3go
Byrd Man
Barham
Lady Arya
Pinky321
rush99999
cosmiccowgirl
sillykins
