The late economist Lester Thurow of M.I.T., born in Livingston Montana, mentioned in one of his books in the 1990s that the traditional social structure wasn’t working and needed to change. I suppose he thought that there are too many people consuming too much of the ecosystem destructively and producing too much eco-waste including greenhouse gases. His comment was perhaps a leading indicator of the deep Harvard-New England elite’s wish to destroy traditional social structures including families led by middle class white males that stand as an obstacle to a master plan based on elite management of society that would conserve and concentrate wealth for the richest and convert the rest of humanity into malleable jellyfish without ideas about personal properties of rights and material.
There are several elements of the Democrat Party and elite agenda that would support the disintegration of families with replacement by common mass public themes. Abortion, legalized dope, homosexual expropriation of marriage, the bread and circuses environment of televised pro sports, promotion of atheism, tax cuts to low, low settings on the rich, open borders with constant influx of non-college graduates that work for low wages illegally, propagation of vast public debt, globalism, mass media propaganda in support of what were traditionally regarded as immoral sex norms and family values etc. Democrat Party Presidential primary planks such as Medicare for everyone at a cost of 52 trillion dollars and other forms of incompetent socialism-corporatism also reinforce the social vector toward a mass social environment of individual citizens with a primary I-Thou relation of the individual to the mass social zeitgeist that would be reflected in nearly all, ideally. Socially autonomous individuals would be reliant on mass social structures rather than families and would have no interest in creating a family unit as dope and promiscuity with a cornucopia of technical and medical entertainment pleasures along with a certain level of prosperity providing more important diversions suitable for a neo-narcissistic society.
In is interesting that development politically toward the disintegration of social structures and conventional social boundaries that protected individuals fundamentally are the new Democrat Party agenda. Yet reliance upon a vast average social conversion of citizens with traditional self interests to the new amoral social sardine beyond good and evil for adaptation to the limits of the natural environment’s carrying capacity seems wrong to me. It is not only wrong, it is inefficient compared to a democracy led by enlightened individuals who recognize traditional American values including the free enterprise economy, Christianity, liberty, free speech, the right to 3D print weapons and heterosexual marriage etc.
Democracy is just a tool for the use of the citizens of a nation. It can be administered with good or bad results depending upon the quality and skill of the leaders it selects through votes to lead it. The United States has had poor leadership either unresponsive or reacting with corruption of society to the primary challenges to national and world existence. One might almost say that Dwight Eisenhower was the last President to serve a full term that was up to speed on ecospheric challenges as science provides knowledge of.
Environmental economics is now an academic discipline and its comprehensive implementation for the U.S.A. would require a complete reformation of social and legal principles led by government. That simply isn’t on the agenda. The tension between the Democrat and elite destroy all traditional values agenda as a way to respond to ecosphere challenges undercuts the possibility of an enlightened response of Democracy to the ecospheric challenges of wilderness loss, overpopulation, species extirpation and global warming. That is the sad fact.
The U.S.A. thus faces a gross political deformity of good policy with Democrats trying to destroy traditional society in order to benefit and fulfill the elite, scientific view of humans and too many biological consumers of ecosphere health and Republicans that with social populism along more traditional lines tend to ignore ecosphere challenges as an externality. With democracy being the best tool when properly led, the political milieu of converting it to socialism or coporatism and secularizing the society to the point of socialized prole citizenry is antipathetic.
It would seem that the non-reproducing atheist amoeba idealized by the elites would produce a good chance of mass social culling of the herd when the conversion goes far enough. At that point the proles might not even care.
Humanity may not be up to long-term living in micro-gravity. The evolutionary challenge may be too great, and artificial gravity is tough to engineer even with spinning centrifugal force functioning space platforms. Humans will need to live on Earth-like gravity environments or in a few generations people may become as extinct as dinosaurs that weren’t up to a quick evolutionary challenge.
Humanity will need to live on the Earth quite a while as bugs are worked out to the entire evolutionary challenge of environments with less than Earth-normal gravity. That means a sustainable world economy that won’t just deplete all resources in the next couple of centuries needs to be adapted. Not even the new Tesla pickup truck that is all electric and goes zero to 60 mph in 2.9 seconds that is a positive factor can fill the need for a complete reform of the world economy along ecological economic principles.
Constructing large space platforms that spin to create a semblance of gravity might not work too well to compensate for the radical changes in G field strength humans would experience in space with travel through micro-gravity. That is, evolutionary structures built over millions of years in a constant gravitational field are not at all similar to temporal changes from G-Earth to micro-gravity. If one considers Newton’s spinning bucket thought experiment comparable to a spinning space station with humans installed in it the paradigm of maintaining a constant gravitational field strength equal to Earth at all locations on the space platform with centrifugal force becomes a brain-sloshing thought experiment itself.
Even the idea of using human hibernation while travelling decades to other stars with planets seems dangerous in light of gravity. Without the Earth’s gravity space travelers will not experience an up and down that the human physiology was evolved in. Unless a space traveler is virtually frozen solid so fluids and molecules cannot disorient to Earth’s up/down field real damage to the human travelers may develop.