I think we're making progress.
Eva Durant wrote:
> <snip>
McD:
> > To both collectivists and certain environmentalists discussing such short
> > range or limited issues is tantamount to shuffling deck chairs on the
> > Titanic. But, as
> > has been noted before, to muddle through a bit at a time, while frustrating,
> > may be the best approach. It at least holds out the prospect that
> > society may
> > attain a singular (critical) point at which a paradigm shift occurs and
> > the correct views are conceived and implemented.
> >
>
> To muuddle through is the maddest possible strategy
> when you are aware, that the boat is sinking.
> - You should tell as many people as you can, so
> you may use the largest capacity of human
> inventiveness to avoid/survive the catastrophy.
>
>
To clarify: while many social critics, such as yourself, Jay Hanson and a number
of religious catastrophists (though from quite different perspectives), hold a
world view of impending disaster, I don't share that view. That is, I alleged
above that some behave as though the boat is sinking, but I don't think it is!
But, to continue for a moment with that metaphor, I do think that the boat is in
dangerous waters and we ought to take appropriate action to safely navigate
through them. The good news is that navigational charts are available but the bad
news is that some have errors, and we don't know which they are.
But if you think the boat is sinking then by all means persuade us to head for the
lifeboats. In the meantime, while you are busy persuading, we'll do our best to
steer out of this mess. But environmental and on-board conditions may indeed
continue to deteriorate until it becomes obvious that the boat is sinking and we
welcome the lifeboats.
Now, returning to the real world, what exactly is it you would have us do to adapt
working conditions to the cybereconomy?
--
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
