Has Anyone Read Bill McKibben's "Enough?"

.

 

I think the technological optimists from the 50s and 60s have been vindicated much more than the luddites. About the only predicted problems with technology that've come true are computer viruses, and an increased threat of terrorism. Almost all other threats have failed to materialize: Nuclear security has IMPROVED, rather than worsened, in the last few decades (although that trend may not continue). Overpopulation is not proving to be the problem many people thought it would be. Energy costs have declined rather than increased.

That's not to say that the Cassandras of the world are always wrong (and a scientist from 1955 predicting the world of 2005 is certainly not comparable to a 2005 scientist predicting the world of 2055)...but I do think that our technology is cause for cautious optimism, and its advancement has become our species' purpose in life in my opinion.

 

You remember the day microwaves mutaded the peas, and then they rose from the dead and...

Oh wait...

 

You guys make me laugh. Fifty years ago people were making outragiously optimistic predictions about the year 2000, and few of them have come true. But I guess all of those are conveniently forgotten, aren't they boys?

 

I doesn't sound as though you've read what he wrote. I think you perhaps just sat there and looked at the pages and really didn't understand what he was saying. It's interesting that you'd focus on him, and not more scientific writers on the subject. As a journalist obviously his job is to synthasize ideas and information produced by others in order to make it more understandable to the general public. Just because he doesn't have a "scientific background" doesn't mean that he isn't capable of understanding scientific information--if anything, the fact that he's a journalist suggests that he's probably more intelligent than most scientists. Scientists being what?--obsessive-compulsive, antisocial geeks for the most part. I don't think that he considers himself to be the final word of the subject--something that you should know if you really did understand what he wrote. That's okay if you didn't, though. Like most American youth, you probably have some sort of learning disability due to all of the chemicals that you're exposed to thanks to "progressive" science.

 

You're right that there were a lot of outrageously optimistic as well as outrageously conservative predictions...from people who didn't know what they were talking about.

Most predictions by serious scientists and people who had actually studied the trends were not that far off. As early as the 1960s, people were predicting something like the world wide web would emerge by the 1990s or 2000s.

The only major miss was the implosion of NASA, which few scientists saw coming. That was mainly caused by a lack of political will following the collapse of the Soviet Union, not by our lack of ability to continue the space program.

 

Are you Bill McKibben's mother or something? Why do you personally attack someone just for disagreeing with his views?

 

.

 

This thread has become a kill the messenger and attack the person killing the messenger.

I haven't read McKibben's works, but I definately understand his line of thinking.. and based on that talk i posted above, I'd say I agree with most of the things he says.

 

.

 

rather then worrying about detail, what does everyone think about the essence of the message?

For example, I perceive the essence of his message (atleast in the audio posted above) is that we have some very new technologies being developed and that we need to make sure that we are using this technology in a responsible way. We also have the problem of technologies in the past (fossil fuel engines) causing environmental harm to us now. There are alternatives we can use out there, and theres the whole issue of the current harmful technologies being institutionalized and thus resisting change to more ecologically friendly and harmonious technologies.

I agree with that message. I think its thought provoking and mentally stimulating, providing a challenge to think out side of the box for new and improved solutions that can give us all the same benefits, but with less harm to the environment.

What do you all think about that?

 

.

 

On the other hand, nanomachines could also clean up the existing damage to the environment. Since nanomachines could be programmed to self-destruct at a certain time, I doubt they would harm the environment unless they were maliciously engineered to do so. But I guess only time will tell.

 

.

 

.

 

ive know bill most of my life,
he is a family friend...if you think im full of shit look up where he has lived...i bet Johnsburg NY is one of the places listed...

 

.

 

There is an RFID Frequency tag thread in the politics forum:


They have proposed to have 'National' ID cards with this technology implimented.

Kandahar I agree that there are ways to use technology that could potentially help with some of the major environmental issues we face - BUT - given the track record of the planet and its use of technology I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.

 

I might be missing the point ... i sometimes do. Are people concerned with us continueing to have a home and not wiping ourselves out or protecting the earth ? We all know the earth wil and always has looked after its self (takes a thousands of years but it always does) I suppose we are being completly selfish as a human species and why not ?.

Live fast die young (humans) , is not a good thing then ?.