Gosh. Its amazing. Things changing so fast! Someone ought to write a book on it. Probably be a best seller. Maybe call it Futureshock.
Opps they did. 37 years ago. 1970 Alvin Tofler. More densely packed and comprehensive than this piece. Its nice to pull these sorts of glimpes of acceleration together, but they also leave out a lot. Nothing about the implications of decoding the entire human genome. Nothing about nano-technology. Nothing about the advances in neuro-chemistry / pharma and its implications. Little on the interconnectedness and and (old word) ubiquitousness of the internet. Nothing about the density of computer storage. Or dsiplay technology. Nothing about energy, its shortage, its possibilities. That algae strains now produce 10,000 times as much fuel as corm, per acre. And rising. Nothing about the population an its consequences. Nothing about ecological balance and imbalance. Nothing about consumption -- the implications of those 25% (or way more) of chinese and indians consuming and excreting / garbaging at the rate of the US. Nothing about medicine and the implications for 200 year olds. And robotics. Actually the piece, in perspective was not mind-blowing in and of itself. Its mindblowing how pedestrian it is relative to all the stuff it left out. How much richer an multi-dimensional change is happening. its interesting since 1970 the rise of (to higher levels an prominence) fundamentalism. Clinging to roots, clinging to something stable. Something, well, fundamental. Change happening. In the relative? Go figure. Change happening fast? perhaps more need for a stable platform. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://tinyurl.com/2qz3cr > > Here's an example of the kind of bullshit that I love to do, but here > at FFL, I cannot get away with it. I wish that a day each week, say, > Thursday, was set aside for this kind of posting, and everyone has to > "keeps hands off" of the posts and posters -- just to let ourselves > air our views and know ahead of time that we won't have to pay a price > of being flamed for our "recreational speculations." > > Each statement of this piece is a bigass abstraction for a morass of > data -- these are the kinds of statements that anyone can attack from > many angles. > > Attack away, kids. > > On the other hand, there is a spirit that is longing for succor behind > these statements that IMO shouldn't be attacked, yet "attacking the > poster's personality" will be the preferred method of discounting the > CHILLING IMPLICATIONS of many of these "assertions," because > scholarship is so damned hard. > > Edg >
