News:

The Common Review ceased as a print publication with the Fall/Winter 2011 issue. However, we will be posting a series of ten new articles on this site over the next couple of months, at approximately 1-week intervals. We trust that you will find these articles interesting, provocative, and equal in quality to the high standards set by The Common Review during its ten-year run.

 

 

In this Issue

More

    Connect

    • Share

    Editorial

    Great Books for a Planet in Trouble

    By  Daniel Born

    Switch to single-page view

    So the polar icecaps are melting at an alarming rate, Mount Kilimanjaro will be denuded of all its snow in twenty years, and a trash vortex twice the size of Texas swirls out in the Pacific between Hawaii and California, grinding up plastic waste into confetti-like bits wreaking ecological disaster on the great biological chain of being. It’s true. I know it is. It’s there in the pictures on the Internet, photos of the great African mountain then and the mountain as it is now. Photographic evidence shows ten-story-tall chunks of frozen goodness calving off the edge of the polar cap ice shelf into the sea. Well-documented reports from National Geographic scientists describe the watery graveyard of our plasticized folly, now officially designated the Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch.

    And to imagine I could save myself by avoiding mercury-laced swordfish and tuna. Oh, for it to be as simple as avoiding sushi—which I don’t care for much anyway.

     

    I’ll admit it: I’m cognitively in agreement with the environmental alarmists. But then why am I so lukewarm about subjects such as global warming?

    Part of the reason I don’t get worked up into an emotional frenzy about these matters is that you don’t have to convince me the planet is in trouble. I find surreal and slightly funny the statistical exchanges about whether there is such a thing as global warming, or whether it’s all a hoax foisted on us by pointy-headed meteorologists who don’t write for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Whatever the fallout from Climategate (it would be a shame, wouldn’t it, if ecoscientists have been cooking the books on the temperature readings in the last couple of years), the temperature readings that have been consistently recorded in the last 150 years tell a story: in that timespan, we know that the last ten years have registered among the warmest fifteen on record. Even the deniers admit there’s been some warming—they just insist it cannot be definitively traced to human activity in particular. You can count on the self-assured skeptic to roll out that hackneyed but convenient argument of David Hume’s that says causality cannot be proved, it can only be inferred. Or, as the Center for Individual Freedom tells us, 55 million years ago the area around the North Pole averaged more than 70 degrees Fahrenheit, proof—in case you hadn’t figured it out—that balmy temperatures up in the Arctic preceded the internal combustion engine. (Ergo: Gentlemen, you may now start up your Ford-150 man trucks without fear, and maintain your mastery of the universe!)

    No, whatever the causes—and I’m willing to grant the inherent oscillating cycles of nature, regardless of destructive human activity—it seems that something is seriously awry. Are we ignoring our most basic ability to read the signs? Lost and disoriented Antarctic penguins are washing up on the shores of Ipanema Beach in Rio de Janeiro. The U.S. Navy is scrambling to prepare plans that deal with a radically different Arctic scenario, one in which several great powers try to dominate a region where the vaunted Northwest Passage will morph from myth to reality, a shipping lane free of ice. Meanwhile, we learn that of the 260 million tons of plastic produced annually in the world, 10 percent ends up in the ocean. Furthermore, the chemical breakdown of these myriad containers occurs much more rapidly than previously thought. What kinds of new chemicals leach through the food chain? Bisphenol A interferes with animals’ reproductive systems. Styrene monomer, the people at National Geographic tell us, is a suspected carcinogen. If the United Kingdom’s Marine Conservation Society is to be believed, more than a million seabirds and a hundred thousand mammals and sea turtles every year die from eating or getting tangled up in plastic. If this is progress, it seems like a high price to pay.

     

    But in spite of the scary talk, psychologically I have a hard time getting worked up into a lather. This is perhaps a result of the wrong kind of reading indulged in since about fourth grade. I have a predisposition to enjoy narratives of a dystopian kind. I love the postapocalytic genre, in which the earth has been ravaged and the remaining human inhabitants have to figure out how to survive. I like this stuff, whether it’s science fiction classics such as Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash or Walter M. Miller Jr.’s A Canticle for Leibowitz, the Terminator films or the dark vision of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. Perhaps all this imaginative trafficking in disaster blunts the spirit or at least dulls the spirit of activism.

    << First < Previous Page 1 Page 2 Next > Last >>
    Daniel Born, Editor

    Daniel Born, Editor

     
    Add comment

    * - required field

    *




    CAPTCHA image for SPAM prevention
    If you can't read the word, click here.
    *
    *
    Queenie, 10-08-11 14:11:
    Boy that relaly helps me the heck out.
    Latesha, 10-08-11 16:25:
    Well macaaimda nuts, how about that.
    Morrisey, 28-05-12 09:44:
    Before you begin writing any drafts, you need to think about the questions: In what order should you explain the various terms and positions you'll be discussing? At what point should you present your opponent's position or argument? In what order should you offer your criticisms of your opponent? Do any of the points you're making presuppose that you've already discussed some other point, first? And so on.
    The overall clarity of your paper will greatly depend on its structure. That is why it is important to think about these questions before you begin to write.
    I strongly recommend that you make an outline of your paper, and of the arguments you'll be presenting, before you begin to write. This lets you organize the points you want to make in your paper and get a sense for how they are going to fit together. It also helps ensure that you're in a position to say what your main argument or criticism is, before you sit down to write a full draft of your paper. When students get stuck writing, it's often because they haven't yet figured out what they're trying to say.
    Give your outline your full attention. It should be fairly detailed. (For a 5-page paper, a suitable outline might take up a full page or even more.)
    http://www.paperwritings.com/
    I find that making an outline is at least 80% of the work of writing a good philosophy paper. If you have a good outline, the rest of the writing process will go much more smoothly.
    Auth, 02-08-12 19:53:
    One of the more interesting notes to me was the cocepnt of failure for free. “Open source software has been one of the greatest successes of the digital age.” (240) Shirky goes on to talk about how the world opened up, and not only could you trade information with others near you more easily, but you can open discussion across the world. This is fascinating point, but I think he’s slightly underselling what the technology age means. Once there is a renewable source of power (which will happen ultimately because of open source research) and then once there is more of a focus on tapping into the potential of under developed countries that are now (because of the renewable, cheap power) able to contribute to the worldwide conversation . . . then you will see the true outcomes of open sourcing. This is a cocepnt, not just a web development tool. The lines of communication are now accessible. THAT is what open sourcing is truly about. The network is what makes that possible. Imagine having access to the intellectual power of the worlds’ poorest people. (Thank you Mr. Jarvis) THAT will be the true culmination of open source. Although, I’ll admit, Linux is cool.My second point is based in a conversation that I had just before reading the epilogue. A group of theatre professionals were discussing the usefulness of social networking when it came to the promotion of art. Suddenly one of the members, who had previously sat quiet, spoke up about his fear of social networking. “I’m not on facebook because I’m afraid that someone is going to see me at a bar at put up some status update about me being there when I’ve just told my boss that I can’t go to the cast party because I’m sick. I’m worried that if I get on these sites, I’m not only am losing my own privacy, but now it’s to the point that I don’t even have to be on these things for people to be causing me a loss of privacy. People can talk about me doing things that may or may not be true, and what am I supposed to do about it? What if my boss see your innocent tweet about a great time you had with me at a bar, and it turns into a mess for me to explain, and I didn’t even do anything. And what’s worse, is what if I didn’t even lie, but you did. What If I’m actually home sick, and one of you guys decides to be funny? What am I supposed to do?”Interesting point. Shirky would say that we no longer live in a world where we can solely prevent, and now we must react. “… the value of freedom outweighs the problems, not based on a calculation of net value, but because freedom is the right thing to want for society.” (306) I wonder at what cost? Obviously there are regulations (Shirky mentions the illegality of yelling fire in a crowded theater) but at what point does it simply become reduced to hoping everyone abides by the rules? Will this mad rush of free speech lead to the end of it entirely? Will human nature so consistently get in the way that over regulation occurs? Will we all quietly steal white bicycles until there are none left?
    Chase, 07-02-13 13:13:
    Shirky pointed out in Here Comes Everybody that the anvdet of the digital technology allowed people’s organization without traditional organizing methods. For the first time in human history people can find other people who share their interests within minutes of search. It is fundamentally changing how people interact and transforming the society. The question is not so much about whether the group forming is a good thing or not but about how the groups form. One statement that I thought was particularly interesting and easy to relate to is on page 105. “Communications tools don’t get socially interesting until they get technologically boring It's when a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive as to be invisible, that the really profound changes happen.” I think here, his ideas were somehow similar to Grusin and Bolter’s immediacy. It is only when one can master a tool; he can then completely enjoy the result that the tool brings. An unfamiliar user will keep being disturbed by how to operate the tool instead of immersing himself in the result the tool brings. The statement above then can be related to a concept that What Would Google Do and other new media book authors keep trying to sell: the tool must be easy to use, or at least in the format that the users are familiar with. Facebook did not become popular because it had all the games and other applications when it started. It had a simple goal: help the students to know and find each other. And the program was designed well to achieve that goal. The games and all the other neat or senseless applications came afterwards. Recently there has been a mass phenomenon on Facebook about its new design. The new design moved where things used to be from the home page’s right upper corner to the left. And some application icons are now hidden under something else. Then they polished the design a little bit. The change was not overwhelming. But it caused a lot of people putting posts on their pages about how much they hate the new design. There’s even a poll for people to vote whether they like the design or not. The result is very much negative.It is fascinating how technology is changing how we organize. I wonder where we are heading now. Somehow I cannot get rid of the worry about we are de-organizing ourselves when we think we are organizing ourselves. What is going to happen next? Are we relying on the new technology too much?