By Robert Field
I have observed how ideas, when allowed to linger over several days and to blend with other experiences, lead to interesting connections.
I spent the better part of a month studying a few pages daily of perhaps the most extraordinary book that I have encountered in a life that has spanned eight decades.
Yet at the moment I mention the author, almost half of the typical audience will discount and even ridicule whatever the author has to say. (With a similar knee jerk reaction, others will be receptive.)
Now that is tragic but consistent with human experience over the evolution of our species, our reported tendency to divide into two camps.
On vacation, today we visited the Doges Palace in Venice. The walls and often ceilings of public room after public room were covered with paintings of a religious theme from the 16th and 17th centuries.
What is the linkage? No matter what era, almost all of us have to be ‘explained’ what has taken place, how to live our lives, and what is to come. This is as true of the population today as for the yeoman of the 17th Century. Even today, most do not have the inclination or the time to spend hours each day in study and reflection.
In the 16th century yeoman received his ‘knowledge’ through the church. With a few exceptions, those who differed kept it to themselves in fear of burning at a stake.
Today, most Americans divide into two camps: Those who watch Fox News and who may read the Wall Street Journal and the Economist; or those who get their views from MSNBC, the New York Times and perhaps The Reporter or another liberal magazine.
Both groups tend to congregate at work and socially, share their notions derived from the same sources, and take pride in their erudition.
Thus most even today have not progressed that far in their critical thinking and quality of observations than the yeoman and merchant class of centuries ago.
The point of all this is to cajole readers not to leap to an adverse conclusion just because the scholarly book is “The Future” by none other than former vice president and Nobel Award laureate Al Gore.
Because of his accomplishments and fame, Gore has been able to enlist the contributions of hundreds leading experts from a large variety of human endeavors and to weave all of the factual information and views into an encyclopedic rendering of what is happening now and what is likely to occur in the not too distant future.
The book is challenging because of its vast information; yet it is well organized with lucid observations and straight forward recommendations. (I do recommend skipping over his introduction and treating it as an ‘afterwards’.)
So here is the challenge. The future belongs to everyone. So let’s forget who wrote the book. Set aside conservative or liberal predilection, and judge it for what it has to say.
If we continue to be bound by our preconceived notions, there won’t be much of a future for the world we have known and would have it for our progeny.
From the jacket quote by Tim Berners-Lee (whoever he is), “If you are concerned about the massive change the world is just heading into, then you should read this book. If you aren’t, then you must read it!”
Tim is credited with inventing the World Wide Web; what most call the internet. It was something he did to gather University research papers and it bloomed from there.
I will try and read Al’s book but I must admit I don’t hold him in very high esteem as Al is a product of a privileged existence and never had to deal with the reality of holding a job and struggling to put food on the table. I consider myself a seeker of truth; no matter the pain. I also think one must consider the probability of success given the history of those who have predicted the future before.
It will be interesting to see if Al’s book has anything new to say or is it a rehash of prior thoughts. Wasn’t it said once before that if you keep repeating something over and over eventually people will believe it?
EDITOR: The environment is but one of the six themes (threads). Furthermore, there is a lot more information available today than when Vice President Gore wrote “An Inconvenient Truth.”
I am delighted that you are willing to read the book.
This article is a self- conceit. The writer’s argument is reduced to: “Don’t judge a book by its author.”
The problem with this is that the writer, Field, instead of analyzing the book he is recommending, simply asks the reader to take his word for it. This is the fallacy of appealing to authority, and it is specious on its face. The sloppiness of the “critique’ is underscored by the tacked-on blurb at the end: “Tim Berner-Lee (whoever he is)…” The writer should know who the hell Tim Berners-Lee is (and how to spell his name.) Sir Timothy Berners-Lee invented the worldwide web, the very man that allows the writer to publish this self-aggrandizing crap.
But at least we know the writer, Field, is in Italy. How relevant.
EDITOR: We plan to follow with excerpts from the main themes over the next week and a half.
I apologize for not linking Berners-Lee to his Wikipedia biography.
Concerning who I am, please check “About Us” link on the left hand column of the home page.
From another point of view I suggest
The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse
(description from amazon)
The planet is sick. Human beings are guilty of damaging it. We have to pay. Today, that is the orthodoxy throughout the Western world. Concern about the environment is legitimate, but catastrophism transforms us into cowering children. Distrust of progress and science, calls for individual and collective self-sacrifice to ‘save the planet’ and cultivation of fear: behind the carbon commissars, a dangerous and counterproductive ecological catastrophism is gaining ground.
Bruckner locates the predecessors of today’s ecological catastrophism in Catholicism’s admonishment to give up joy in the present for the sake of eternal life and in Marxism’s demand that individuals forsake personal needs for the sake of a brighter future. Modern society’s susceptibility to this kind of catastrophism derives from what Bruckner calls the ‘seductions of disaster’, as exemplified by the popular appeal of disaster movies. But ecological catastrophism is harmful in that it draws attention away from other, more solvable problems and injustices in the world in order to focus on something that is portrayed as an Apocalypse. Rather than preaching catastrophe and pessimism, we need to develop a democratic and generous ecology that addresses specific problems in a practical way.