tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post110915583685744996..comments2024-03-28T22:45:34.599-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Modernism Part 14: more on Crichton vs scienceDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109376474750003212005-02-25T16:07:00.000-08:002005-02-25T16:07:00.000-08:00I actually went out and signed up to the New Repub...I actually went out and signed up to the New Republic to get the article...something I don't do very often, since it usually means subscribing to periodicals I will never see again.<br /><br />The article wasn't wrong, per se. Where we parted company was in seeing "increased freedom" as an ideological value rather than a pragmatic one. Freedom is a real, tangible benefit--and occasionally it can be increased, paradoxically, by stricter regulations, if some other party is creating its own practical restrictions. (Careful questioning reveals that even the religious right knows this; it seems to take a secular ideologue to deny it.)<br /><br />Or to take the other side--economic efficiency is desirable, but it isn't an end in itself; one must ask the question, "Efficiency in doing what?" An inefficient war is certainly unjust, but an efficient one is not necessarily just.<br /><br />That said, the current Republican leadership <B>could</B> proceed empirically to determine what conditions actually increase freedom, and it has not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109346055923295042005-02-25T07:40:00.000-08:002005-02-25T07:40:00.000-08:00Good points, once again. I was on talk show host ...Good points, once again. I was on talk show host and columnist Dennis Prager's website the other day, and I read a battery of questions titled "Are you a liberal?", which had to be most asinine list I'd ever seen. While there may have been five or six questions I could say "Yes" to with no reservations, most of them were flat-out distortions or only applied to a left-ideologue fringe that I wouldn't even dignify with the term liberal:<br /><br />http://www.dennisprager.com/areyouliberal.html<br /><br />A few choice ones:<br />"It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party." <br /><br />Yes, lawyers and teachers- the two professions that make liberal society WORK. Even if our legal system and educational system have problems, I don't think demonizing these unions and who they represent is the answer.<br /><br />"A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women." <br /><br />All things being equal, a couple consisting of a man and a woman should have more of a right than two men or two women- yet that doesn't mean that the latter options aren't better than one parent, or no parents at all. Or take this- who do you think would make the better parents- two poor teenagers of the opposite sex, or a couple of mature 30 something homosexual professionals who have decided they want to raise a child together? I know which one I'd pick.<br /><br />(This also gets me on another rant- the bogus idea that just because you don't think something is completely right or completely wrong, that you're a "relativist". I don't think that a "gay marriage" is the moral equal of heterosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean I think it's morally wrong, and strikes me as morally far superior to homo or heterosexual promiscuity. I guess I see most moral issues this way- a sliding scale of value, rather than absolute right/wrong.)<br /><br />Oh, this one is divine:<br /><br />"The present high tax rates are good."<br /><br />This is a loaded statement if I've ever heard one. The US has some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world- roughly on par with Japan. Given what we get for our money, I'd say we've got a pretty plum deal, even given some of the problems in the system. <br /><br />All too often, I'm hearing liberal conflated with ridiculous positions or slippery-slope nihilist arguments that just don't hold any water.<br /><br />As the article I linked to a few days ago pointed out, the Clinton administration had a serious economic debate- Reich vs. Rubin- and Rubin won. The Bush administration doesn't want to talk pragmatically. While Social Security reform is a daring idea, I'm afraid that it's just going to create another massive bureaucracy and spend $2 Tril we don't have on a problem that's being blown out of proportion (the social security "shortfall" is based on a 1.5% economic growth curve- when we've averaged 2.8% over the last century. And, suffice it to say, that if the economy is only growing fast enough to keep up with population growth (if that), the stock market isn't going to be going anywhere, which kind of puts a freeze on the whole motivation for privatization to begin with.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109345595123283602005-02-25T07:33:00.000-08:002005-02-25T07:33:00.000-08:00Nicq: Ah, okay, that makes more sense. Though I'm...Nicq: Ah, okay, that makes more sense. Though I'm sure you could probably find some liberal economists who're idealogially devoted to... I dunno, something, there's probably a few old communists around or something, but for the most part, liberals, from what I've seen, are less interested in how something gets done than that it gets done. This might again just be part of being out of power, but.<br /><br />Like, I think deficits can be okay, if they're there for good reasons and aren't permanent. Like during a war or recession, or to build/rebuild infrastructure. Things that are either needed or pay themselves off. Just like taking out a loan to repair/upgrade your house.<br /><br />But that's not what we have, Bush and his crew keep pushing for more tax cuts even when we're in the middle of two wars and the government's already in a deficit.<br /><br />And relevant to Dr. Brin's post, I agree with the insincerity of Crichton's anti-global-warming allies (and on other issues too, but that's another point), and that the Senate botched Rice's confirmation hearings. The saddest spectacle during that whole thing was the Republicans who got up and started preaching about how "liberals hate minorities" because people questiond her competence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109303408308640082005-02-24T19:50:00.000-08:002005-02-24T19:50:00.000-08:00This week the Harris Poll found (surprise!) entren...This week the Harris Poll found (surprise!) entrenched attitudes about gun control and tax cuts and religion, among those whocall themselves "conservative" or "right" vs "liberal" etc. And this is supposed to prove something? The poll seemed perfectly chosen to lob easy questions, selecting a few questions under which the old conservatism would safely be found compatible with the new conservatism. It deliberately avoided<br />glaring areas, of profound change, in which Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.<br /><br />Here are a few I wish they had also asked.<br /><br />"Do you feel the US should balance its books and erase our grandchildrens' debt before giving tax cuts to the rich?" (Cityfolk leaned heavily toward paying off debt and balancing budgets - those dang spendthrift liberals!)<br /><br />"Do you believe in strict separation of church and state?" (Goldwater did.)<br /><br />"Do you feel the US should be the world's policeman, enforcing its ideals on other nations?"<br /><br />"Do you feel that increasing government secrecy is a sign of honesty and strength or does it encourage concealment of poor behavior?"<br /><br />"Do you feel that professional military and intelligence officers should be protected from coercion or pressure from politicians?"<br /><br />"If the nation's scientists nearly all agree that a trend may threaten our childrens' well-being, is the government obligated to accelerate research and development that may alleviate the problem?"<br /><br />You could create an almost endless list of such questions...<br /><br />... and others that show how desperately foolish and anti-modern the LEFT has become, as well. For example utter cluelessness about some of the reasons why liberals are so deeply resented in the countryside. One thing that would help a lot is if liberals were to go to rural folk and offer a compromise on environmental land-use regulations. A lot of the fire in the bellies of rural folk is about being told what to do with their own land by city folk. When the dems call a great big conference about this, I'll believe they are gearing up to win.<br /><br />Finally, some of you have been discussing the role of govt regulation in adjusting the market's forces so that the market will then reward long term good decisions. Libertarian romantics hate this idea, but pragmatists see it as only natural - and then can debate endlessly over where and how to draw the lines. My libertarian instinct is to worry about excessive meddling by good-intentioned paternalists. But history shows that democrats have actually done more DE-regulating of major industries (trucking, banking, telecom, airlines etc) than the GOP has ever even proposed. Add this to Clinton's surpluses and you get a very odd picture. Showing once again that the LR axis sucks.<br /><br />Oh, one more item.<br /><br />If Crichton's allies were sincere, they would want the research budget for Climate Change studies INCREASED, instead of suppressing research. No action better shows the underlying agenda... along with the reversal of the 90s trend in lowering govt secrecy. (The number of secrets is now skyrocketing.)<br /><br />Stupid Dem senators asked Condi NONE of the choice questions. e.g. "If you admit a big intelligence error was made re WMD, can you give us the names of CIA and other officials who dissented and were proved RIGHT? Can you show us how they have been rewarded, advanced and promoted for speaking up and for having been proved right?"<br /><br />(Hint: all evidence shows that they have mostly been fired or squelched.)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109303378613532572005-02-24T19:49:00.000-08:002005-02-24T19:49:00.000-08:00AWK! In my article synopsis, I actually REVERSED ...AWK! In my article synopsis, I actually REVERSED what the article said- the Conservatives are ideologically driven, while Liberals (not to be confused with socialists!) are experimentally-driven!!! A mistype there, not a misreading... I posted the article because it seems to sum up something that Brin is trying desperately to get at...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109290356368038002005-02-24T16:12:00.000-08:002005-02-24T16:12:00.000-08:00anders, I agree with you, and not. Yes, the marke...anders, I agree with you, and not. Yes, the market's failing in this case, and this is an example of somewhere where government intervention would make the market more efficent. It's starting to slowly work, since you can actually buy the other bulbs at Wal-Mart now, because prices have been dropping dramatically over the past few years. The incadescent bulbs seem cheaper, but cost a lot more in energy usage and don't last as long, so are more expensive in the long run. The market, at least the way it's working right now, is good at short term, and not so good at long term. There's lots of emphasis on companies making new record profits every quarter, to keep the stock prices up. And CEOs usually have a lot of stock, so they often do whatever it takes to make stock prices go up now, rather than building more long term. part of the problem is the turnover with CEOs, who are usually around only a few years, then don't care what happens once they get out and cash in their stock. Which is, essentially, one of the arguments against term limits for elected offices.<br /><br />But you're right, without some kind of outside encouragement, either from government or from rising energy prices or some kind of energy shock, the better bulbs and so on aren't going to be used as rapidly as they could and probably should be.<br /><br />My main point though, was that this kind of stuff has more benefits than JUST the environmental ones, benefits that should appeal to the "Right" as well as the "Left".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109274707218930042005-02-24T11:51:00.000-08:002005-02-24T11:51:00.000-08:00Nate,
The point is that environmentally, those th...Nate,<br /><br />The point is that environmentally, those things may be good things, but<br />the market does not agree. For example, the Halogen bulb that I could buy at Walmart costs much more than a simple incandescent bulb. Thus the masses, being what they are, will choose the more wasteful incandescent bulb. Market forces doesn't work! You need a government to intervene to make us, as a whole, choose the better long term solution. If the government does not, then it just won't happen. I know libertarians don't like this, but this is the problem we are faced with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109273149075773452005-02-24T11:25:00.000-08:002005-02-24T11:25:00.000-08:00I have to just say "heh" to the New Republic's the...I have to just say "heh" to the New Republic's theory about conservative and liberal economics, (or at least nicq's synopsis of it, I'm not a subscriber) especially given the current leadership of the Republican party's devotion to tax cuts, but that's neither here nor there.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to make of Crichton, most of his latest stuff I've seen that's made much of a public splash has been his silly, right-wing stuff like the anti-climate change stuff.<br /><br />Which, honestly, I don't quite understand. A lot of the things that would reduce greenshouse emissions are just making stuff more effiecent, which seems to be a good thing. CF bulbs instead of normal light bulbs, better insulation and sensible building practices, distributed power from solar cells and stuff, better fuel efficency for cars, and upgrading the power plants and power grid. Things that'd not just reduce emissions, they'd make the power grid more stable and stronger and more distributed, and also result in us buying less oil. So they're good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for national security, since they'd make the power grid less of an attractive or devestating target for terrorists.<br /><br />And yes, that would probably require government subsidies and expenditure, but so did building the whole power grid originally. Some things the government does well, some things the "free market" does well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109259320379772592005-02-24T07:35:00.000-08:002005-02-24T07:35:00.000-08:00Response to Nicq McDonaldWhen I listen to the Cric...Response to <A HREF="http://www.livejournal.com/users/quantanephilim" REL="nofollow">Nicq McDonald</A>When I listen to the <A HREF="http://integralnaked.org/talk.aspx?id=68" REL="nofollow">Crichton interview</A> on Integral Naked, I'm struck by the arrogance emanating from both Crichton and Wilber. [Others may not feel the same obviously, but this was my impression. Also, it is rather funny that Wilber writes about spirituality all the time and yet comes across as so arrogant.] Perhaps David has picked up on this arrogance.<br /><br />Can you recommend a Neal Stephenson book to read? I cannot get through Cryptonomicon. Puts me to sleep each time I start reading it.NoOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685249095572192084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109199957385137452005-02-23T15:05:00.000-08:002005-02-23T15:05:00.000-08:00Off topic, but relevant to the discussion of moder...Off topic, but relevant to the discussion of modernity and ideology:<br /><br />There's a new article up at The New Republic online that discusses Conservative vs. Liberal economic policy, and how Conservatives and Liberals are not mirrors of each other- one is ideologically driven (libs) while the other is driven by the desire to experiment and research (conservatives). The author also makes the important distinction between true liberals and socialists, and between the climate of debate in the Clinton Administration vs. the climate of emotional absolutism of the Bush Administration. Worth checking out.<br /><br />http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050228&s=chait022805<br /><br />NoOne:<br />Your impression of Crichton is similiar to mine (though I think he's more of a hack). I also find it interesting that he had this discussion with Mr. Wilber, who is a very staunch environmentalist (and founder of EcoISP).<br /><br />Humble Lurker:<br />Stephenson is always an interesting one to bring up politically. I consider his works as important as Orwell or Huxley, though I have yet to find a professor who agrees with me (or who has even heard of the man- though I do have yet to bring up the subject with our newest gov't prof, who is also a fan of Brin and has frequently made reference to Transparent Society)...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109197908807300852005-02-23T14:31:00.000-08:002005-02-23T14:31:00.000-08:00Willie:
It's from the second to last page of the ...Willie:<br /><br />It's from the second to last page of the last chapter of _Science and the Modern World_, which Whitehead wrote in 1925.<br /><br />My review on Amazon has the quote in context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109189377958265022005-02-23T12:09:00.000-08:002005-02-23T12:09:00.000-08:00I've been following these columns and doing some r...I've been following these columns and doing some reading - I don't have anything profound to add to this discussion, but I wanted to share some links I found that might be of interest:<br /><br />www.realclimate.org - rebuts Crichton's arguments, among other things.<br /><br />Interview with Neal Stephenson, who appears to share the modernist views of Mr. Brin<br />http://www.reason.com/0502/fe.mg.neal.shtml<br /><br />Um, sorry for posting a competitor link, but you and he seem like natural allies. (FWIW, I like your writing style better ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109186338003424222005-02-23T11:18:00.000-08:002005-02-23T11:18:00.000-08:00This entry -- particularly the last paragraph -- g...This entry -- particularly the last paragraph -- gets to the heart of the problem.<br /><br />Crichton doesn't want to destroy science, he wants to neuter it . . . to make it non-threatening and compliant.<br /><br />There's a great bit in Huxley's <I>Brave New World</I> where we see World Controller Mustapha Mond working through a pile of scientific papers, deciding which ones will be published and which will be supressed and have their authors sent into exile. He eventually reveals that he used to be a physicist, but -- when it was determined that the implications of his work would threaten the status quo -- was given a choice between continuing his research on an isolated island or giving it up and going into politics. The world state officially worshipped science and progress, but in reality they long ago embalmed it and kept it on a pedestal.<br /><br /><I>"It is the business of the future to be dangerous, and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties." -- Alfred North Whitehead</I> <br /><br />StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109183672088257472005-02-23T10:34:00.000-08:002005-02-23T10:34:00.000-08:00I'm in two minds about Crichton. On the one hand, ...I'm in two minds about Crichton. On the one hand, the plots of all his novels foretell a "doom of the week" pertaining to some technological breakthrough---cloning as an obvious example. On the other, he is a good critic of postmodernists. Anyway, I went back and listened to Crichton's interview on <A HREF="http://www.integralnaked.org" REL="nofollow">Integral Naked</A> which can be found <A HREF="http://integralnaked.org/contributor.aspx?id=31" REL="nofollow">here</A>. (Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber.) There's a two part interview entitled "At the dangerous edge of the knowledge quest." Quoting from the blurb on the website, "Crichton has often been read as a neo-Luddite: mess with nature, get your comeuppance. But his stance is much more subtle and complex, and, if anything, contra-Luddite. “The Luddite stance is not very useful in any way for today’s world.” Rather, we must do science (and hence “mess” with nature), but there is always danger at the edge of knowing, and the unintended consequences can be disastrous. As a character in Prey puts it, “Things never turn out the way you think they will….”" If I were to give him the benefit of doubt, then at his best, he's here to warn us from making boneheaded mistakes at the leading edge of science. At his worst, he's a purveyor of bad pulp tech. fiction. Also, on the website, In a similar vein, "Michael and Ken [interviewer] share a criticism of extreme postmodernism, anti-hierarchy notions, reality as merely or only constructed. They champion the need to check evidence as much as possible (including its interpretive moments, but not absolutizing interpretation as the extreme postmodernists do), and accordingly they voice an integral criticism of what Michael calls “the human tendency to one-sidedness.” My question to the others on this forum is, when Crichton says "Progress in technology and knowledge is a good in itself, and nature is a partner in that pursuit—but a partner that must be paid the utmost respect," do you believe him or do you think he has a right wing hidden agenda as David seems to think?NoOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685249095572192084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109175649921436712005-02-23T08:20:00.000-08:002005-02-23T08:20:00.000-08:00I'm not sure I can add much to the discussion, but...I'm not sure I can add much to the discussion, but I wanted to just comment that I am enjoying these posts (and their comments) immensely.Silly Old Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12596701341213781844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1109160981608372482005-02-23T04:16:00.000-08:002005-02-23T04:16:00.000-08:00I couldn't help but think, on skimming State of Fe...I couldn't help but think, on skimming <I>State of Fear</I>, how much it looked like <I>The Thor Conspiracy</I>, a schlock-fest about how the ozone hole is really caused by a secret nuclear missile test that was conducted in the sixties. Oh, and the CFC ban is really meant to starve people in developing nations by making refrigeration really expensive.<br /><br />This gem was, for some peculiar reason, included on a shelf of "Christian books" with items like <I>Left Behind</I> despite having no discernable religious content. Perhaps Crichton's work belongs there too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com