Blogging the Noosphere

Ever since reading a wonderful essay a long time ago by SF author David Brin, extolling the virtues of the progressive rationalist vision of Rodenberry’s Star Trek universe over the elitist world view of Lucas’s Star Wars, I knew here was a thinker after my own heart.

Brin recently published a new piece in Salon on a topic I have been thinking a lot upon lately.  I have commented on this before in the blog.  Somewhere else (that I can’t  find now) referred to it as that “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” paradox we seem to find ourself in.  We live in a time of great abundance, at least for most people in modern western societies.  At no time has so much wealth and power been available to so many, and at all levels of society.  Yet it also feels like no time has been more perilous, with the threat of unimaginable horrors barely held back, threatening the health of our planet, our societies, even the very existence of our species.

Brin’s article concerns the recent incarnation of this dichotomous view between the techno-transcendentalists and the (neo)Luddites, with the optimists proclaiming the near miraculous posibilities of our new information technologies to solve the world’s problems, and the pesimist’s predictions of imminent disaster and decline because of the very same technologies.

Brin argues for a truth to be found somewhere in-between the two perspectives. This is a vast over simplification of the argument, however, and one that Brin does a good job of developing in depth.  It is not so much that the truth is somewhere in the middle of these perspectives, but more so that each is correct but limited in context where it is applicable.  In the end Brin concludes that the optimal stance is that of the pragmatist.  The pragmatist attempts to understand and discover all of the facts, both the good but especially the worst.  But the pragmatic mind set of the Enlightenment, as Brin refers to it, can and does face such seemingly insurmountable problems.  Not with fizzy optimism, but with hard work, determination, and enlightened perspectives.

Not my title, but that of an article in most recent Chronicle of Higher Education here.

As an educator and scientist in higher education I see what the author is talking about first hand all the time. I have little luck in convincing the American undergraduates I work with of the joys and benefits of pursuing higher education in the scientific and technical fields, while our graduate programs are brimming with foreign nationals. As the author says, I have nothing but admiration and respect for our graduate CS students, and greatly admire many of them in their determination and effort. My beef is with the American students, products of our American educational system. Will all of those undergraduates really find themselves as satisfied and fulfilled as their counterparts a few grades above them in the years to come? Some additional points to add, in no particular order:

• Self-esteem and all, as the author points out is greatly overrated. Self-confidence without a basis of real achievement and struggle is hollow at best, and will lead to a similarly hallow life.
• And conversely, there is nothing quite like the feeling of perspective one gets looking back on a long journey of constant (slow, steady, sometimes yes even agonizing) progress and accomplishment towards a difficult goal. The authors term is “arduous intellectual ascent”. It is not always arduous, there are many small joys and wonders on the slow long journey, mostly sufficient to counter the setbacks, dead-ends, frustrations and wanderings that will inevitably occur.
• I don’t know how to begin to (re)emphasize this type of personal and intellectual achievement and self-discipline as cultural ideals. But I know it is essential that we recapture it somehow as a cultural imperative and core educational perspective
• I knew the thrust of this topic was triggering some association, and now I just recalled that Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People makes some similar points, much better than I argue here, along the same lines in his introductory chapters. I’ll have to dig that up and reread to refresh myself on some of his points, but check it out, I highly recommend the book.

I just finished giving a talk this afternoon for our TAMUC Freshman Success Seminar. Not sure if I managed to convey anything of use or import to any of you all. If any of the Freshmen who were there in the class want to leave me a comment I would love to hear what you thought, or if you had any questions. I really should have mentioned the blog and suggested people leave comments.

Anyway pressed for time I sort of threw out one topic or point that I was going to make. I’m sure by the last slide some students would perhaps think that I am obviously a Technophile at best, and possibly a naive fool at worst, in spouting an overly optimistic and simplistic view of the power of science and technology as a positive force in our culture. I was going to quote the following excerpt from Ted Kaczynski, you know he of Unabomber fame, as a somewhat diametrically opposed view of what I was presenting:

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

By all accounts Kazcynski is a very smart individual, a bonafide genius. So it should at least be distubing to us that he can look at the same set of facts and come up with such a bleak and opposite view of our potential future. In response I would urge you to read the following except by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger on Salon from their new book

Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility

As a response to the type of depressive vision of Kaczynski, I think it rather nicely sums up my own message (though I wish I had even a portion of their talent to communicate it so well).

For those who might have been interested, here is a link to the slides of the presentation I gave:

Computational Sciences and Scientific Literacy PDF

Computational Sciences and Scientific Literacy PPT

Computational Sciences and Scientific Literacy ODP