Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopgramatist Manifesto by Stewart Brand (longnow blog here). I have quoted enough from this book already - one of the best books I ever read. I respect people who adapt and change minds, when the facts change (but not because of intellectual laziness or inferred justification or just being a plain old cognitive miser). I haven't seen anyone who adapted so seamlessly like Stewart Brand did. This book is a call to embrace charter cities, nukes and biotech (genetic, microbes etc) to save not only our civilization but this planet as well. I have been bought into genetics and microbes a while ago but Brand made me change my mind on other two (well.. at-least one).
Nukes:
Here is one of the many warnings on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste which made me anti-nuclear:
"Before one can communicate with unknown future societies about deadly nuclear waste, it is important to consider with whom precisely one is trying to communicate. Such people may be part of a highly advanced civilization, they may be a society much less advanced than our own, or they may have comparable technology to that which we have today. Further, they may not be directly descended from local cultures. Messages will thus need to communicate to anyone– regardless of their culture, technology, or political structure– that intruding upon the repository is not in their best interest."
But Brand changed me with a very simple and pragmatic argument (even his TED debate wasn't convincing enough but this book did the job).
"With Climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened."
We should start thinking nuclear energy as a less probable danger albeit a known demon. On the other-hand climate change is known unknown, not excatly a Black Swan but has the potential of dissipating into many Black Swans. We as a society have to accept some sought of risk for the betterment of (and to save) our civilization. Good thing is we always have that Bayesian on our side.
Charter Cities:
"Cities make countries rich. Countries that are highly urbanized have higher incomes, more stable economics, stronger institutions. They are better able to withstand the volatility of the global economy than those with less urbanized populations."
Here is one of the many warnings on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste which made me anti-nuclear:
"Before one can communicate with unknown future societies about deadly nuclear waste, it is important to consider with whom precisely one is trying to communicate. Such people may be part of a highly advanced civilization, they may be a society much less advanced than our own, or they may have comparable technology to that which we have today. Further, they may not be directly descended from local cultures. Messages will thus need to communicate to anyone– regardless of their culture, technology, or political structure– that intruding upon the repository is not in their best interest."
But Brand changed me with a very simple and pragmatic argument (even his TED debate wasn't convincing enough but this book did the job).
"With Climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened."
We should start thinking nuclear energy as a less probable danger albeit a known demon. On the other-hand climate change is known unknown, not excatly a Black Swan but has the potential of dissipating into many Black Swans. We as a society have to accept some sought of risk for the betterment of (and to save) our civilization. Good thing is we always have that Bayesian on our side.
Charter Cities:
"Cities make countries rich. Countries that are highly urbanized have higher incomes, more stable economics, stronger institutions. They are better able to withstand the volatility of the global economy than those with less urbanized populations."
"Cities of engines of rural development... Improved infrastructure between rural areas and cities increases rural productivity and enhances rural residents' access to education, health care, markets, credit, information and other services. On the other hand, enhanced urban-rural linkages benefit cities through increased rural demand for urban goods and services and added value derived from agriculture produce."
-UN-HABITAT
-UN-HABITAT
Yes, Brand's argument did convince that charter cities are in-fact green. But there are two crucial factors missing - First, people currently living in slums are not planning to do so for ever but they do so on the hope someday they will be able to get out of it. That's the hope that keeps them going. Charter cities might take that dream away. Question is what happens then?
Secondly, what are the neural implications of living in a slum? What happens to our brains sans Biophilia? Thanks to neural plasticity, wouldn't that change who we are? I don't have the answer to those two questions but I think those needs to be answered before falling in love with slums.
And Brand does addresses the "cease-pool of criminality" that comes with packing humans in close quarters with this analogy:
"Electricity was stolen from shore via extension chords, water via garden hoses. People crapped in the bay, and it smelled rank at a minus tide. There was some drug trade and the occasional murder. There was some freelance prostitution."-
This is not the profile of Dharavi, Mumbai but surprise surprise Sausalito, California in 1950's!! Well... I am not sure if Dharavi can become Sausalito someday.
I cannot half-heatedly accept the charter cities yet but suburbia is disastrous too. We have to debate other options, if any.
Now for some reality check on state of science in this country, I haven't seen this in any western country or India but Brand writes that every elementary school in every village in China has a sign over the door in Mandarin with the following guidance:
Secondly, what are the neural implications of living in a slum? What happens to our brains sans Biophilia? Thanks to neural plasticity, wouldn't that change who we are? I don't have the answer to those two questions but I think those needs to be answered before falling in love with slums.
And Brand does addresses the "cease-pool of criminality" that comes with packing humans in close quarters with this analogy:
"Electricity was stolen from shore via extension chords, water via garden hoses. People crapped in the bay, and it smelled rank at a minus tide. There was some drug trade and the occasional murder. There was some freelance prostitution."-
This is not the profile of Dharavi, Mumbai but surprise surprise Sausalito, California in 1950's!! Well... I am not sure if Dharavi can become Sausalito someday.
I cannot half-heatedly accept the charter cities yet but suburbia is disastrous too. We have to debate other options, if any.
Now for some reality check on state of science in this country, I haven't seen this in any western country or India but Brand writes that every elementary school in every village in China has a sign over the door in Mandarin with the following guidance:
LOOK UP TO SCIENCE
CARE FOR YOUR FAMILY
RESPECT LIFE
RESIST CULTY RELIGION.
With that attitude, guess who will be at the forefront in science this century?
With that attitude, guess who will be at the forefront in science this century?
"If any group can get itself into ecological balance and stabilize its population even in the face of environmental change, it will be tremendously disadvantaged against societies that do not behave that way. The long term successful society, in a world with many societies, will be the one that grows when it can and fights when it runs out of resources. It is useless to live an ecologically sustainable existence in the Garden of Eden unless the neighbors do so as well"
-Constant Battles, Steven Leblanc.
That's very crude version of tragedy of commons. Although, it has some truth to it, it's a very pessimistic outlook. I think, we as a civilization can and will do better than that. So the next book on my reading list is Rational Optimist!!
-Constant Battles, Steven Leblanc.
That's very crude version of tragedy of commons. Although, it has some truth to it, it's a very pessimistic outlook. I think, we as a civilization can and will do better than that. So the next book on my reading list is Rational Optimist!!
No comments:
Post a Comment