 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
LongTomH's Journal
Check out these articles at Climate Progress: First, China pursues the technology that will save humanity:
The good news is that China is finally making the great leap forward into concentrated solar thermal power (with biomass). That is “The Technology that will Save Humanity,” as I’ve argued. It’s the most scalable and affordable baseload (or, even better, load-following) low-carbon supply technology when used with low-cost, high-efficiency thermal storage or when sharing its steam turbine with biomass or even natural gas (see “Hybrid solar/gas plants provide low-cost, low-carbon power when needed“). The bad news is, this is yet another core clean energy technology pioneered in the United States (in the 1980s) that China may eat our lunch on (see “Invented here, sold there”). The earlier article quotes from a NY Times article by Tom Friedman. Yeah, the "The World is Flat" guy; but, this time you need to listen: Applied Materials is one of the most important U.S. companies you’ve probably never heard of. It makes the machines that make the microchips that go inside your computer. The chip business, though, is volatile, so in 2004 Mike Splinter, Applied Materials’s C.E.O., decided to add a new business line to take advantage of the company’s nanotechnology capabilities — making the machines that make solar panels. The other day, Splinter gave me a tour of the company’s Silicon Valley facility, culminating with a visit to its “war room,” where Applied maintains a real-time global interaction with all 14 solar panel factories it’s built around the world in the last two years. I could only laugh because crying would have been too embarrassing. Not a single one is in America. Let’s see: five are in Germany, four are in China, one is in Spain, one is in India, one is in Italy, one is in Taiwan and one is even in Abu Dhabi. I suggested a new company motto for Applied Materials’s solar business: “Invented here, sold there.”
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
An important anniversary went(mostly) unremarked this last December. It was on December 29, 1959, that the late Dr. Richard Feynman delivered an after-dinner talk to the American Physical Society's annual meeting in Pasadena, California. Feynman had not yet attained national prominence as a member of the Challenger Commission or as a Nobel Prize winner; but, he was respected by his colleagues as an important voice in American physics. That talk: "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" and its consequences were the topic of an article by Adam Keiper in the Wall Street Journal, and a reply by Dr. Eric Drexler on his blog: Metamodern.com.
Quoting from the WSJ article: Feynman said that he really wanted to discuss "the problem of manipulating and controlling things on a small scale." By this he meant not mere miniaturization but something much more extreme. "As far as I can see," Feynman said, the principles of physics "do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." In fact, he argued, it is "a development which I think cannot be avoided." The physicist spoke of storing all the information in all the world's books on "the barest piece of dust that can be made out by the human eye." He imagined shrinking computers and medical devices, and developing new techniques of manufacturing and mass production. In short, a half-century ago he anticipated what we now call nanotechnology—the manipulation of matter at the level of billionths of a meter. Some historians depict the speech as the start of this now-burgeoning field of research. Yet Feynman didn't use the word "nanotechnology" himself, and his lecture went for years almost entirely unmentioned in the scientific literature. Not until the 1980s did nanotechnology researchers begin regularly citing Feynman's lecture. So why, then, does one encyclopedia call it "the impetus for nanotechnology"? Why would one of Feynman's biographers claim that nanotechnology researchers think of Feynman "as their spiritual father"? Keiper remarked on the way that nanotechnology has been 'redefined' in recent years: Much of the work that now goes under the rubric of nanotechnology is essentially a specialized form of materials science. In the years ahead, it is expected to result in new medical treatments and diagnostic tools, ultraefficient water-filtration systems, strong and lightweight materials for military armor, and breakthroughs in energy, computing and medicine. Meanwhile, hundreds of consumer products using (or at least claiming to use) nanomaterials or nanoparticles went on the market in the past decade, including paints and cosmetics, stain-resistant garments, and bacteria-battling washing machines and food containers. <snip> But there is another kind of nanotechnology, one associated with much more hype. First described in the 1980s by K. Eric Drexler, this vision involves building things "from the bottom up" through molecular manufacturing. It was Mr. Drexler who first brought the term "nanotechnology" to a wide audience, most prominently with his 1986 book "Engines of Creation." And it is Mr. Drexler's interpretation that has captured the public imagination, as witness the novels, movies and video games that name-drop nanotechnology with the same casual hopefulness that the comic books of the 1960s mentioned the mysteries of radiation. Dr. Drexler remarked that the article is "uncommonly accurate;" but, he expressed a desire for "more meat and spices in the soup:"
Dr. Drexler complimented Adam Keiper for his service in pointing out that National Research Council had called for more Federal research support for the type of nanotechnology that Eric Drexler has been talking and writing about since 1977. There's a good definition of molecular nanotechnology at the Center for Responsible Nanotechology site. I'd like to add that I've been following discussion of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) since I hearing Eric Drexler speak at a conference in 1986. There has been considerable progress since then. A lot people have put their faith in the potentials of a mature, molecular nanotechnology to change the world for the better; these are the "futurists" that Adam Keiper refers to in the WSJ article. My own feelings are a mixture of hope - and dread! MNT has a great potential to address problems such as climate change, peak oil, water shortages and resource depletion. Much of its promise lies in the fact that its so much more efficient in its use of energy and materials than conventional manufacturing. Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology have pointed out that MNT could reduce the gap between the world's rich and poor or increase it. It could also result in a dangerous arms race. This article by Mike Treder also discusses the promises and threats of molecular nanotechnology. That's the major reason that I want progressives to get involved in discussion of MNT and public policies on its use and implementation. Given our present trajectory toward a world 'plutonomy,' an economy run by and for the ultra-rich, it's more likely to increase that gap. I might also point out that China and India have gotten the message about nanotechnology, and they see it as If you're seriously interested in the history of nanotechnology, check out Dr. Drexler's series on Metamodern:
In a post at the Huffington Post, Apollo 11 astronaut Buz Aldrin praised the Obama Administration's plans to cancel the Constellation moon program, and the Ares rocket program, and to rely on the private sector to ferry astronauts and cargo to orbit.
Thank you, Mr. President. That's what we should say to President Barack Obama in light of his Fiscal Year 2011 space budget for NASA. The President courageously decided to redirect our nation's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years, aiming instead at boosting the agency's budget by more than $1 billion more per year over the next five years, topping off at $100 billion for NASA between now and 2015. And he directed NASA to spend a billion per year on buying rides for American astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles-that's American space vehicles. Other NASA funds will go into developing and testing new revolutionary technologies that we can use in living and working on Mars and its moons. Aldrin has criticized the Ares rocket program before, calling the test of an Ares 1 prototype: "much ado about nothing, and "a little more than a half-a-billion dollar political show". In this latest post, Buz Aldrin pointed out that the Constellation program was vastly underfunded, had little chance of success, and was eating into NASA's Earth and space science programs. The money spent for a return to the moon was taking away from the Mars part of the 'Moon-Mars Initiative.' The administration's new priorities will add a billion dollars a year to NASA's budget over the next five years, with funds going to advanced technology research and to buy spaceflight capabilities from private companies like Space-X. The goal of a return to the moon - and maybe Mars have been replaced with a 'Flexible Path' that may include manned trips to near-Earth asteroids and/or the Martian moons before landing on the Red Planet. Quoting Buz Aldrin again: Before deciding what to do about national space policy, Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts, headed up by my friend Norm Augustine, former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official. Augustine's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take (that group included me). In October, it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine. The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program, called Ares 1, and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station. And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race, but on something it called a "Flexible Path." Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons. Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach, not just one. He closes the article with a call to support the President and a promise to revisit the issue in future articles: I'll be speaking out about the plan more in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, I ask my friends and readers to get behind Obama's new policy. Join with me and help usher in a new age of space. A space program that truly goes somewhere! With his deeds, not only words, President Obama has revitalized our struggling space program. His has been a "Profile in Courage" when it comes to space and science. And that's why I call it his JFK moment. Edited to add: This comes with particular satisfaction for me. In the early 2000's time period, I went to Washington as part of the Space Frontier Foundation's 'March Storm' to talk to congress about new priorities for our space program. Those priorities included allowing the private sector to take a larger role in space transport and to divert the money saved into advanced research and exploration. Prof. Robert Pollin of the Political Economy Research Institute talks some sense about the US deficit and the calls to cut social spending to cut it. Chris Phoenix of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has an interesting post on his blog. Basic Survival Package
It's a list of basic life needs that he would like for everyone on the planet to have access to:
Since his blog is devoted to a discussion of nanotechnology and its benefits (and dangers), Chris discusses how developments in nanotechnology may facilitate the production and delivery of these needs: As manufacturing gets less and less expensive (in large part, thanks to nanotechnology), it will be more and more possible for private individuals to make a world-class difference. According to The Soul of Money by Lynne Twist: Buckminster Fuller said in the 1970s that the planet now has the ability to provide for everyone, but it would take 50 years for us to fully act on it. In another ten years, a basic web appliance (with display, or maybe full voice interface) might cost $10 instead of $100. Likewise for a water filter. Adequate lighting might cost $3 instead of $30. I'm not talking charity, nor communism, but simply preferring to live in a world where a small expenditure of money can give the world a billion fewer "poor people" and a billion more productive, participating citizens. Chris promised to address more of these concerns and asked for additional ideas from his readers. There have already been interesting comments to this post. I might add that, I've been increasingly dismayed over the way that conservative opinions have dominated futurist discussions over the last few years. Do some Google searches on: "Heritage Foundation" AND nanotechnology. That right-wing 'hive of scum and villainy' has sponsored a number of nanotech conferences and provided speakers for others. Chris Phoenix and other bloggers give me some hope that progressives can take back the dialogue on our future. The CounterSpin radio program produced by the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting center (FAIR) recently carried an interview with Bill Fletcher, former President of the TransAfrica Forum and executive editor of the Black Commentator. Mr. Fletcher took on the omissions in media reporting of the crisis in Haiti:
CS: Well, as we've watched the news from Haiti unfold, U.S. commentators have frequently mentioned that, even before the earthquake, that in terms of civic order and economics, Haiti was in tough shape. This is often mentioned in the context of explaining how relief efforts may be hindered by the lack of infrastructure, corruption, and so on. Perhaps deep history is too much to expect from the networks, especially at this early point, but what should listeners know about how Haiti's economy and civil life got where it is today? BF: One of the reasons, I think, that this is critically important to look at history is that the problem in the absence of history, is that people tend to then look at Haiti as a basket case . They look at it as pathetic, as opposed to understanding that Haiti today is a direct result of the policies of the United States and France, that go back to when Haiti achieved independence from France in 1804. I mean, if you don't get that, if you don't understand that the United States blockaded Haiti until 1862, that the French demanded that the Haitians pay reparations to France for the loss of the slaves as a result of the Haitian revolution, from the 1820s until 1947; if you don't get that the United States occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934; if you don't get that the United States backed, systematically, repressive regimes in Haiti, the most notorious being Papa Doc Duvalier; if you don't get that the United States was directly implicated in overthrowing President Aristide in 1991; you can't understand how Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and one of the poorest on the planet. So the destruction of Haiti through outside interference, the ecological devastation that has taken place, because people burn down trees in order to convert burnt wood into charcoal, in order for them to sell to live. These are the--this is what life is like in Haiti. Eighty percent are living below the poverty line. So the mainstream media, by ignoring this broader context, ends up painting this picture of a pathetic population, as opposed to a population whose main crime was living on an island that is that close to the United States. CS: Well on the first big night of coverage, January 13th, I watched NBC's Brian Williams explain how hard it is for Americans to understand just how poor Haiti is. And it made me think, well, isn't that your job? If it's so remarkable, shouldn't NBC and other major outlets have been providing ongoing coverage of this? BF: Well that's certainly what they should have been doing. And what's interesting is that--I contrast major media outlets in the United States with Al Jazeera. I mean, if I want more in-depth news, I'll look at Al Jazeera, I'll look at BBC. I mean, when you look at the mainstream U.S. news, you get no in-depth analysis as to what's going on. And you're absolutely right, NBC should've been providing the background, not just showing a picture of Haiti, or showing a picture of the suffering people, but giving the viewer an idea as to how it is that they've come into the situation. Because the level of poverty, the lack of infrastructure, the fact that there was a coup in 2004 that overthrew, for the second time, President Aristide , and that the United States was again directly implicated in that coup, these things help us understand the state of Haiti as it is. And so what we also have to get is that, while there's emergency relief that's absolutely necessary, that Haiti fundamentally needs the equivalent of a Marshall Plan. It needs massive re-development that goes beyond the devastation that's taken place in the aftermath of the earthquake. The rest of the interview is here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3997 Most of this post is from posts on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy website. Phil treats the news of the Ares and moon program cancellations as mixed; but, doesn't react. In his latest post, he gives Pres. Obama credit for some good news:
The good news for sure is an increase of $6 billion over the next five years. It stresses new technology and innovation (to the tune of over $1.5 billion), which is also good. A lot of NASA’s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done. It also stresses Earth science, which isn’t surprising at all; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact, including global warming. So that’s still good news. The very very good news is that half that money — half, folks, 3.2 billion dollars — is going to science. Yeehaw! The release specifically notes telescopes and missions to the Moon and planets. That, my friends, sounds fantastic. In a previous post: Give space a chance, he states: OK, yes, it does look like (assuming the rumors are true) the Obama budget for NASA is cutting out the Constellation rocket program in general and Ares in particular. But that doesn’t mean manned spaceflight is dead. As I said in that above link, private space companies are still a ways off from putting people in orbit. However, I strongly suspect they’ll be doing it before Ares would’ve been ready to do it anyway. Private companies like Space-X may be two years from that, while Ares wouldn’t have been ready for five, assuming NASA could even get Ares ready by the scheduled time and in the assigned budget (which I would give a chance of, oh, say, precisely 0). So it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that after the Shuttle retires later this year (or early next) companies like Space X will be able to reach the International Space Station with rockets before NASA could. Phil definitely is not a fan of the Ares rocket. Neither is Apollo 11 astronaut Buz Aldrin, and neither am I. Some Apollo-era NASA engineers quit when they learned the new space shuttle design would rely on solid rocket boosters. There are the obvious safety issues, and the fact that the SRB's were a major factor in keeping the cost of shuttle launches high. Space-X is still forging ahead with it's Dragon and Dragonlab capsule projects as well as the Falcon 9 Heavy Lift vehicle. Back to Phil's latest post: So, where does this leave us as far as going back to the Moon? It leaves us delayed, again. That sucks. However, as I have pointed out before, Constellation was already a mess. Behind schedule, over budget, and starved of funding. It was a mandate from the Bush White House, but never got the money it needed from them or Congress to ensure it could be done (this didn’t work when it was attempted from the Bush Sr. White House/Congress either). Phil continues with a very good, in-depth analysis of the Obama Administration's decision as well as prospects for future manned exploration. Another interview with Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Politics. There are two press release on Rep. Grayson's blog commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling extending First Amendment 'rights' to campaign spending.
From the first press release: Grayson Condemns Court Ruling: (Washington, DC) – In a 5-to-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations have the "right" to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence and manipulate federal elections. The decision overturns more than a century of law and precedent. Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-8) immediately condemned the decision. "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case," Grayson said. "It leads us all down the road to serfdom." The court decision completely ignores the likelihood that corporations will spend money to elect officials who will do their bidding, and punish those who won't. It allows unlimited election spending by all corporations, even foreign ones. "The Supreme Court has decided to protect the rights of GE, Volkswagen, Lukoil and Aramco, at the expense of our right to good government," Grayson added. Rep. Grayson has introduced a package of 5 pieces of legislation entitled: Save Our Democracy. The actual titles of the bills are: 1) The Businesses Should Mind Their Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. 2) The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges. 3) The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute. 4) The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services. 5) The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs. I apologize if I've broken the 'four paragraphs' rule; but, these excerpts are from two different press releases, and the bill titles and descriptions are short. Two British academics are shaking up the UK with a book that started as an academic study of inequality and its consequences. Richard Wilkinson is a retired professor of social epidemiology at the University of Nottingham. His field of study for the last few decades has been the relationship between social inequality and public health problems.
Wilkinson's book, coauthored by Kate Pickett, lecturer at York University, is titled The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. The authors maintain that social inequality is at the root of, or exacerbates, many societal ills, including:
According to the Guardian UK article by John Grace: "It became clear," Wilkinson says, "that countries such as the US, the UK and Portugal, where the top 20% earn seven, eight or nine times more than the lowest 20%, scored noticeably higher on all social problems at every level of society than in countries such as Sweden and Japan, where the differential is only two or three times higher at the top." The statistics came from the World Bank's list of 50 richest countries, but Wilkinson suggests their conclusions apply more broadly. To ensure their findings weren't explainable by cultural differences, they analysed the data from all 50 US states and found the same pattern. In states where income differentials were greatest, so were the social problems and lack of cohesion. The opening sentence of The Spirit Level cautions: "People usually exaggerate the importance of their own work and we worry about claiming too much." Indeed, they've made sweeping claims; but, they have backed them up with extensive scholarship, using statistics from the United Nations Development program and the World Bank. Their sources and methodology are listed on The Equality Trust Website, run by Kate Pickett. Like good scientists, they asked colleagues to review their work and methods. One of the most startling conclusions from the book is that inequality affects everyone in more unequal societies. Not surprisingly, a person in the lower 20% percentile income-wise in an unequal society will have a lower life expectancy: And, they say, it's not just the deprived underclass that loses out in an unequal society: everyone does, even the better off. Because it's not absolute levels of poverty that create the social problems, but the differentials in income between rich and poor. Just as someone from the lowest-earning 20% of a more equal society is more likely to live longer than their counterpart from a less equal society, so too someone from the highest-earning 20% has a longer life expectancy than their alter ego in a less equal society. Take these random headline statistics. The US is wealthier and spends more on health care than any other country, yet a baby born in Greece, where average income levels are about half that of the US, has a lower risk of infant mortality and longer life expectancy than an American baby. Obesity is twice as common in the UK as the more equal societies of Sweden and Norway, and six times more common in the US than in Japan. Teenage birth rates are six times higher in the UK than in more equal societies; mental illness is three times as common in the US as in Japan; murder rates are three times higher in more unequal countries. The examples are almost endless. One of the indexes of inequality that Wilkinson and Pickett used in their is the GINI Coefficient, a measure of inequality across the societal spectrum. Most developed industrial nations have a GINI coefficient between 24 and 36. The United States has a GINI coefficient of 40.8 using UN figures; the figure for the UK is 36. The US and UK, rank 45th and 37th respectively in terms of life expectancy - using figures from the CIA World Factbook for 2008. Japan, which has a much flatter income distribution, ranks 3rd with a life expectancy at birth of 82.07 years. Life expectancy at birth in the US is 78.09 years. Professor Wilkinson is retiring after his latest work; professor Pickett is continuing. She's running The Equality Trust website and campaigning for social reforms to lessen inequality in the UK. Their work is attracting a lot of attention in the UK. They're starting to get a little attention in the US. I got the link to the Guardian article from a 'futurist' the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies website. This issue of societal inequality is going to be more important as new technologies come on line. Some of them have the potential for deepening the gap between rich and poor; indeed, the rich could become a separate species from the rest of us (They already think they are!). I promise to discuss this in more detail in future posts. The book is available from Amazon UK; it hasn't reached Amazon.com in the US yet, and no, I haven't read it yet, just the reviews. I promise it will be on my must-read-list. Actually, that's oversimplifying things a bit. Doug does begin an excerpt from his book: Life Inc: How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take it Back with the story of his mugging outside his Brooklyn brownstone, in a neighborhood in the early stages of gentrification. Doug managed to negotiate with his mugger to leave him his health card. That's one recommended tactic for people being mugged in New York; it establishes some bond between mugger and muggee.
Doug posted the story of his mugging on a neighborhood blog, hoping to get at least a few expressions of sympathy. What he got was fury at having posted a story which might bring down local property values. Like any good writer, Douglas Rushkoff extracts meaning from this, moving from the specific issue of gentrification, and the way a lower income neighborhood gets 'colonized' by the affluent, to the broader issue of how 'real life' has become defined mostly by economic values: Park Slope, Brooklyn, is just a microcosm of the slippery slope upon which so many of us are finding ourselves these days. We live in a landscape tilted toward a set of behaviors and a way of making choices that go against our own better judgment, as well as our collective self- interest. Instead of collaborating with each other to ensure the best prospects for us all, we pursue short-term advantages over seemingly fixed resources through which we can compete more effectively against one another. In short, instead of acting like people, we act like corporations. When faced with a local mugging, the community of Park Slope first thought to protect its brand instead of its people. The issue is corporatism and how it's come to dominate our lives; but, Doug doesn't let the rest of us off the hook. We've internalized the values fed us by our corporate masters. Even now, as we attempt to dig ourselves out of a financial mess caused in large part by this very mentality and behavior, we turn to the corporate sphere, its central banks, and shortsighted metrics to gauge our progress back to health. It’s as if we believe we’ll find the answer in the stream of trades and futures on one of the cable-TV finance channels instead of out in the physical world. Our real investment in the fabric of our neighborhoods and our quality of life takes a backseat to asking prices for houses like our own in the newspaper’s misnamed “real estate” section. We look to the Dow Jones average as if it were the one true vital sign of our society’s health, and the exchange rate of our currency as a measure of our wealth as a nation or worth as a people. <snip> This is the landscape of corporatism: a world not merely dominated by corporations, but one inhabited by people who have internalized corporate values as our own. And even now that corporations appear to be waning in their power, they are dragging us down with them; we seem utterly incapable of lifting ourselves out of their depression. Doug isn't without hope; remember, the last part of the book's title was: "And How to Take It Back." While we will find characters to blame for one thing or another, most of corporatism’s architects have long since left the building—and even they were usually acting with only their immediate, short-term profits in mind. Our object instead should be to understand the process by which we were disconnected from the real world and why we remain disconnected from it. This is our best hope of regaining some relationship with terra firma again. Like recovering cult victims, we have less to gain from blaming our seducers than from understanding our own participation in building and maintaining a corporatist society. Only then can we begin dismantling and replacing it with something more livable and sustainable. The rest of the article is here: Life Inc, Pt. 1: Your Money or Your Life: A Lesson on the Front Stoop Doug Rushkoff joins the growing list of progressive authors trying to make sense of whatever-the-hell-is-going-on-here and offering prescriptions for how to dig ourselves out of the hole. From the excerpt, it does look like his book will be worth reading. There's something else interesting going on here: Rushkoff is also a science-fiction writer who posts on futurist sites like the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies blog. Discussion of the future has been dominated by the political right to the extent that, most progressives are suspicious of 'futurists.' If you see someone defined as a 'futurist' on a cable news channel, he will probably be spouting the same litany of tired tripe as the other talking heads: globalism is great, trickle-down economics will be the 'tide that lifts all boats,' etc. Plus he'll add some quick references to the internet, nanotechnology, biotechnology, whatever. The idea you're supposed to absorb is, that technology plus laissez-faire will bring everyone prosperity. This domination by the right isn't just in the media, I used to attend functions organized by the Foresight Institute, which bills itself as "the leading think tank and public interest institute on nanotechnology." Speakers included people like: Peter Schwartz of the Global Business Network; who also gets a warm mention on The Ayn Rand Center's website. Also try a Google search on: nanotechnology AND "Heritage Foundation." That faux-Libertarian, neo-conservative hive of scum and villany sponsors a lot of futurist and nanotechnology conferences. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to label the Foresight Institute and everyone connected with them as right-wingers. Another speaker at their functions was Brad Templeton, chairman of the board of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the civil liberties organization devoted to free speech in the digital world. I talked with quite a few more people coming from a progressive orientation, especially in the discussions on "how do we prepare people for the transition (to a nanotechnology world)?" Douglas Rushkoff is one of a growing number of voices from both a future-oriented and progressive prospective, writers and thinkers who label themselves as techno-progressives. This includes science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, who has written of the possibility of a 'post-capitalist' world in both his fiction and articles. What I really want to see is for progressives to take back discussion of the future from the right. Actually, there's an honorable history of progressive futurism going back to enlightenment thinkers like the Marquis de Condorcet, who predicted such utopian reforms as universal, free education and social security. Earth Day has come and gone - again. We all know we need to do more to really reduce 'carbon footprints.' We've done many of the 'light green' things like recycling and replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents. So what remains to be done? An article at the Worldchanging.com website lists the big things that will make a difference. Please note that there is debate in many quarters as to whether Earth Day is really doing any good in reversing the downward trends in the environment.
But in general, Earth Day is still being used primarily to sell crap that won't make a difference. Our inboxes were still flooded with press announcements touting Earth Day solar bikinis; Earth Day buy-this-thing-and-we'll-plant-a-tree promotions; Earth Day specials on a greener SUV. There are no simple steps worth caring about. We'll only head off disaster by taking steps -- together -- that are massive, societal and thorough. Most of what needs to be done involves political engagement, systems redesign, and cultural change. It can't be done in an afternoon and then forgotten about. So screw the little things. Here are 10 big, difficult, world-changing concepts we can get behind.
For a full discussion of each issue and links to Worldchanging.com articles on each point, go to: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/0097... Here's an interesting side issue: I followed a link from a link in the above article and found a fascinating interview with SF author Kim Stanley Robinson. Robinson's science fiction contains themes of social justice and environmental 'sustainability'. I use quotes because Robinson himself prefers the term: 'permaculture' to 'sustainability.' But if you think of yourself as terraforming Earth, and if you think about sustainability, then you can start thinking about permaculture and what permaculture really means. It’s not just sustainable agriculture, but a name for a certain type of history. Because the word sustainability is now code for: let’s make capitalism work over the long haul, without ever getting rid of the hierarchy between rich and poor and without establishing social justice. Sustainable development, as well: that’s a term that’s been contaminated. It doesn’t even mean sustainable anymore. It means: let us continue to do what we’re doing, but somehow get away with it. By some magic waving of the hands, or some techno silver bullet, suddenly we can make it all right to continue in all our current habits. And yet it’s not just that our habits are destructive, they’re not even satisfying to the people who get to play in them. So there’s a stupidity involved, at the cultural level. Robinson considers a possible 'alternate history' scenario where the Reagan Revolution never happened: Well, at the end of the 1960s and through the 70s, what we thought – and this is particularly true in architecture and design terms – was: OK, given these new possibilities for new and different ways of being, how do we design it? What happens in architecture? What happens in urban design? Well, at the end of the 1960s and through the 70s, what we thought – and this is particularly true in architecture and design terms – was: OK, given these new possibilities for new and different ways of being, how do we design it? What happens in architecture? What happens in urban design? As an aside, during the '70s I was rather turned off by the Appropriate Technologies movement. I saw it as being technophobic and regressive, what is now being called 'Dark Green.' I think it's a positive development that many of the really useful ideas of the Appropriate Technologies movement are now resurfacing as part of the 'Bright Green' movement. According to Alex Steffen, one of the founders of the Bright Green movement: What is bright green? In its simplest form, bright green environmentalism is a belief that sustainable innovation is the best path to lasting prosperity, and that any vision of sustainability which does not offer prosperity and well-being will not succeed. In short, it's the belief that for the future to be green, it must also be bright. Bright green environmentalism is a call to use innovation, design, urban revitalization and entrepreneurial zeal to transform the systems that support our lives. Alex Steffen, Kim Stanley Robinson and others, including progressive futurists: Mike Treder, Doug Rushkoff and Jamais Cascio are creating a new, positive vision of the future which can include both social justice and sustainable development / permaculture (choose your term). June 30 was the 2nd anniversary of the death of my sweetheart and lover, Mary Jeanne Brady: 1943 - 2006. We were never married (which I regret now!), and never lived together; but, Jeanne was and always will be the great love of my life.
Jeanne, Sunday, I went to take flowers to your grave. I also put up a little spinner and banner that you would have liked. Then I took a walk through that little park we loved to walk in, either with your grandkids or alone. And you were there. Summer was your season, love. I saw the rocks where the kids played, jumping from rock to rock, and the bench where we sat. I remember........... I remember your touch, and holding you in the night. I remember dancing with you, holding you tight, whether it was at a parish dance or charity ball, or in your kitchen. I even remember the song that time; it was Donovan's Jennifer Juniper on CD. I remember all the music we loved and shared, whether it was live or on CD. All the Jazz in the Woods concerts, the little clubs, the summer outdoor concerts. You taught me to love jazz and blues. And you listened to music I loved, my Donovan, Moody Blues and Celtic. I remember sharing books and movies. I remember watching "A Beautiful Mind" with you. You were so moved you had to sit on a bench in the lobby and discuss it afterwards. I remember so many discussions; especially after Sept 11, 2001. You talked about your discussions with the Peace and Justice person at the Archdiocese, who expressed a hope that we wouldn't react with violence. I wish America had listened to people like you and the Good Sister. So many special moments: A peaceful afternoon in the Botanic Garden where I wrote you a poem. Seeing you posing at the foot of the statue of your patron: Saint Joan. A sand castle on a beach in California and our shadows on the sand. Riding those little streetcars in New Orleans. Thank you for sharing, my love. Thank you for sharing those times with your wonderful family, and your friends. I really need to get back in touch; I didn't mean to let so much time go by. Thank you for taking the time to get to get to know my friends, even my crazy friends in SF fandom. I remember your wonderful Mardi Gras and Lundi Gras parties, with your friends and mine. I'm going to have to finish this tonight! |
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Don't Blame Facebook for the Erosion of Online Privacy By Blue_Tires More employers use tech to track workers By Blue_Tires Sarkozy's party braces for electoral wipeout By Judi Lynn Likely Successor Emerges to Lead U.S. Forces in Iraq By Judi Lynn Making Public Information Available Online: Rep. Israel Introduces the Public Online Information Act By Emit Adolf Eichmann files kept under key - for now By Judi Lynn My take on HCR bill being fixed later: By ddeclue Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours.  Our whole economy is now based on who can trick other people out of their money 143 recs : By Syrinx Taunted Parkinson's Victim has a doctorate in Nuclear Engineering from Cornell. Watch his response: 116 recs : By mod mom They Are Starting To Regret This 99 recs : By ProSense Virginia warns wife of Justice Clarence Thomas her group is violating law 99 recs : By kpete Jim Hightower: Two Right-Wing Billionaire Brothers Are Remaking America for Their Own Benefit 79 recs : By marmar Freepers going ballistic over Sean Hannity's wounded soldier scam 56 recs : By johncoby2 The Trillion Dollar Wealth Transfer (Health Reform Part 1 of 4) 53 recs : By Political Heretic Lt Dan Choi speaks out after his arrest - BRILLIANT! 52 recs : By JBoy Ashcroft Can Be Held Accountable for Post-9/11 Wrongful Detention 50 recs : By kpete Lt. Dan Choi free; brought to court in leg shackles 46 recs : By Neecy Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 |
