The solar system is full of vast amounts of resources, and they are within reach of current technologies. No Star Trek technologies required.
You're counting on some magical technology to be discovered that will save humanity? That is not only a huge gamble, it's an unbelievably stupid gamble as well.
It's worked for the past 10000 years: every time we hit some limit, new technology let us get around the limit.
Furthermore, if we fail to develop new technologies, we'll simply stop growing.
That's a very narrow and conservative point of view that doesn't allow for any kind of technological achievement that we don't yet understand
That's not the "conservative" point of view, it's the "liberal" point of view. (US-style) liberals, progressives, and the left wing have been worried about a Malthusian catastrophy for a long time and want to regulate and interefere. Global warming is just the latest example of this. Much of the long term planning of progressives simply does not account (and cannot account) for technological change and market mechanisms.
Conservatives generally want people to have as many kids as possible. Contrary to the straw man put up by progressives, conservatives generally don't deny the occurrence of global warming, they just don't care because they believe markets and market-driven development of new technologies will take care of whatever the consequences might be. That's a "conservative" view because that's how the US and other nations have dealth with change for a long time.
That rant would be a lot more convincing if it came from someone who (1) actually produced something creative, and (2) who could make a convincing argument that he has actually been harmed by Google.
So far, I see the whinings of a third-rate author whose works aren't infringed by Google and who has probably benefited enormously from publicity due to Google, not to mention that he and others creating "his" show probably use Gmail and other Google tools.
The Koch brothers and friends are always bitching about the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance when they work full time.
I've never seen the Koch brothers "bitch" about "bout the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance". Citation?
The Koch brothers, like most people who believe in classical liberalism, simply believe that government financing of programs like health care and retirement is simply not sustainable; what they are "bitching" about is Democrats pushing through legislation that is good for their short term political gains but in the long term will invariably result in "the bottom 90%" not being able to get good health insurance.
The overbearing, unrepresentative, one-size-fits-all approach that we're suffering from right now is simply due to trying to have a single federal government make more and more decisions about economics, social policy, etc.
There is a much simpler and more traditional way of achieving the same effect: reduce the size and power of the federal government. That way, people will naturally sort themselves into states and counties with similar political interests and leanings, and one state/county has little power over another. I.e., if people in your neighborhood don't spend money the way you like it, just move. That has a number of advantages over your approach, foremost that people need to live with the consequences of their choices (i.e., if they want low welfare spending, they must move in a community with low welfare spending), and that changes in allocation can't be made on a whim but exact a price from people who make those changes (i.e., moving).
A free market in education lets parents choose what their children learn, which results in a wide diversity of viewpoints being taught. That's a good approach.
The approach we are increasingly heading towards is having everybody educated according to a single, government-imposed standard. That results in exactly what you fear: generations of students who "get fed biased information and suffer for it on the world stage".
Don't believe me? Look at the US education system. It's not the private schools that are dragging it down in international comparisons, it's the public schools. And public schools drag us down despite having some of the highest per pupil spending on the planet.
Not many people meet in the park these days to discuss ideas (or gossip) on Sunday afternoons.
No, we meet on the Internet instead.
We used to own the government. Now private enterprise does.
That's utter nonsense. The US government has always been in the hands of a rich elite. It's just that the damage it could do was limited by its limited role. But the rich elite has figured out that by promising people "stuff" (social security, health care, cheap homes, etc.), they can convince them to give them more and more power and money, and they use that to enrich themselves.
Watch as the US Postal Service is delivered to the hands of private enterprise in the next 10 years.
We should be so lucky.
Federal science funding is near an all time high (disregarding the one-time stimulus nonsense):
Whether billionaires also spend money on additional research makes no iota of difference to the publicly funded research.
Furthermore, large-scale government funding of research is historically a relatively recent phenomenon and closely tied to the rise of socialism and communism: socialist and communist regimes in large part tried to direct research for what their central planners considered "the public good", and the US responded in turn with nuclear weapons research, research into industrial agriculture, etc. Let's not even get into publicly funded research into social science, politics, and race. So, it isn't even clear that publicly funded research is a good thing. But whether it is or not, we have plenty of it.
Well, Heinlein is right, though not in the way he probably intended it.
In totalitarian regimes or anarchies, people have to be polite even if they are wronged because if they don't, they'll get hurt.
If they are lucky, those cultures then develop into wealthy, liberal societies. In those kinds of societies, people have some degree of free speech and personal security, so they feel free to speak up and speak their mind, even if it offends people.
Eventually, wealthy and liberal societies come to an end for other reasons. People like Heinlein are then looking for causes and misattribute the fall to whatever negative social phenomena they observed prior to the fall.
So, a period of "rudeness" usually precedes the fall of a great civilization, but there is no causal relationship: rudeness doesn't cause the fall, and the fall doesn't cause rudeness.
This seems to be what the population of Europe is clamoring for, and Hungary delivers. Populism at its best. Hungary is simply less constrained by a tradition of democracy and liberty than other European nations. But don't worry, France, Germany, and the UK will catch up.
The rich in Florence were actively promoting the development of arts and culture
The rich in Florence were actually rich, as in being able to afford palaces, servants, and all that. A bunch of Facebook stock doesn't buy you that kind of wealth anymore.
Sure, you are correct that much of it was private, but the architecture, and public buildings (and the paintings within them) were for everyone - or at least, so everyone could see how great they were.
SF zoning and planning means nobody can build shit in the city, doesn't matter how rich you are. That's part of the reason for the housing shortage. It's also why SF architecture is so dismal.
I'd argue that it is nothing like classical Florence, where the artists had sponsors
So would I. I classical Florence, the rich could do whatever they wanted. They could tear down entire blocks, build palaces, and display their vast wealth in whatever way they wanted. In San Francisco, you can't even chop down a tree without getting lynched by the mob and raped by the planning commission. In fact, the people San Franciscans complain about as being "wealthy" are Internet millionaires who have just barely enough money to buy themselves a nice two bedroom.
There's no analog in Silly Valley for that, none of the new rich are sponsoring great art, whether for themselves or the public.
The truly rich in Silicon Valley spend their money on private space flight, exploring the human genome, building robots, and tons of other stuff. Stuff that's actually useful.
San Jose? That's about an hour+ south of SF with absolutely no public transportation taking you to other areas of the Bay.
San Jose is on Light Rail and Caltrain, and near the BART terminus. Downtown San Jose is getting its own BART station next year.
Disclosure: I live in San Francisco (proper)
Yeah. It shows. Please stay there.
Creating artificial chemical structures based on his theory, like this paper seems to do, is a neat additional gimmick, but that has been done many times before. Even if it were new, it wouldn't be little more than a simulation of his equations; what counts is whether biology behaves like he predicted.
The real test of Turing's theory is whether it describes actual morphogenesis, and it has been shown to do that, many times over the years. That's the real "validation".