informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
root@procul
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
commit 278a90f7ce
57951 changed files with 34606208 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
magazines/NWR/index.gemini
+21
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
# NWR
New World Reader (1994-1995)
## FILES
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.1.1.txt [ 14349] New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 1 (November, 1994)
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.1.2.txt [ 11089] New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 2 (January, 1995)
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.1.3.txt [ 11728] New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 3 (February, 1995)
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.1.4.txt [ 24398] New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 4 (March, 1995)
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.1.5.txt [ 27151] New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 5 (April, 1995)
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.1.6.txt [ 18649] New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 6 (May, 1995)
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.1.7.txt [ 31119] New World Reader Volume 1 Issue 7 (June, 1995)
=> gemini://informis.land/textfiles/magazines/NWR/nwr.readme.txt [ 2861] New World Reader: Statement of Purpose and Information
magazines/NWR/nwr.1.1.txt
+271
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Idealetter
November 1994
Vol. 1 * No. 1
Contents-
What is The NWR?
>From the Editor: The End of the World
Communications
Extreme Reductionism: Theories of Everything
Looking Back
Scientific Currents
Books
___________
What is NWR?
The idea for The New World Reader (NWR) was conceived exactly two years ago
in November 1992 just after the presidential elections. I saw a need for a
publication which considered not the current political issues, but current
political ideas and how these ideas affect our lives. The theme of
"change" in the last election caught my imagination and I began to think
about what this word really meant. What sort of change was Bill Clinton
talking about? What sort of change would take place? I thought NWR should
track this change and act as an impartial gauge to measure the success or
failure of "change." This idea was doomed to failure. Even with the
resources of the Internet at my finger tips, I could not possibly keep up
with the workings of government and society on my own. After the attempted
composition of two issues, I decided I had taken on too great a task.
The idea of change stuck with me though and has lead me to recast the
intent or goal of NWR. Change is the coming or realization of the future.
That which is now becomes what is to yet to be. This is change. The
twentieth century is replete with change. Many biographies of prominent
figures in this century give accounts of how these figures were born before
automobiles, airplanes, indoor plumbing, etc. and witnessed the emergence
of atomic energy, men on the moon, and e-mail. This century will be known
for the changes that have taken place in the way people live.
NWR will still track change, but not just the change promised by Bill
Clinton. I propose to look to the future to anticipate the changes that
will take place. This will require some looking back, some examination of
the present human condition, and some tentative predictions. In some ways,
I will be continuing in the spirit of Alvin Toffler's program which he
presented in his book "Future Shock." In order to be prepared for what is
coming, we must have some knowledge of it. Since we cannot have certain
knowledge of the future we must settle for speculation.
Why is it important to anticipate change? Beyond avoiding the shock of
future, by envisioning what will come we have more control over the future.
By planning for the future we are able to determine it so that it reaches
us in a form we recognize. To avoid looking forward is to blindly accept
whatever development comes. We cannot afford to take such a relaxed
position in a time when future developments could literally mean the fate
of the world and the survival of civilization.
Enough prologue. NWR should speak for itself.
__________
>From the Editor: The End of the Century, the Millennium, and the World
First, a confusion needs clearing up. The end of the century and the
millennium is not December 31, 1999; the last day is December 31, 2000. I
will prove this with a simple argument: the present century is called the
twentieth century; to deprive the twentieth century of the year (2000) that
gives it its name is absurd. The climax of the twentieth century is
reached when 20 times 100 years is complete. Don't even think of
celebrating the end of the century at the end of 1999, unless you wish to
celebrate the coming of 2000 the final year of the twentieth century.
When a time period comes to an end, it inspires all sorts of things, not
just confusion about when that end actually occurs. The confusion over the
last day of the twentieth century mirrors another confusion: the defining
characteristic of the generation that is presently coming into their
maturity, the so called Generation X. The X tells us that no one has a
clue what this generation is all about. That ethnic groups are trying to
define themselves with labels in the form of X-Americans (fill in anything
you want for the X) shows that people are searching for something with
which to identify. We have experienced an explosion of diversity so
complex that the underlying unity is buried under the social rubble. The
great melting pot is in the throws of a psychological metldown. The
meanings of words are changing. Bad is good and good, bad. What was once
positive creative alienation has become alienation from the self. The
fragmentation that enabled us to conduct productive lives now threatens to
dissolve the ties which bind together the family just as it has brought an
end to community. The end of society is rapidly approaching.
In light of this, it is no surprise that most people secretly desire the
end of the world. Those who are defeated look to the future and find it
bleak. Because they are defeated they lack the power to do anything about
the future; mass suicide seems to be the only answer.
A successful campaign has been waged against the dignity of humanity. We
have suffered many losses: a loss of meaning, of commitment, of hope. Even
though, a solution is possible. A positive worldview can be resurrected
from the ashes of this self inflicted degradation. Indeed, viewing the
world and humanity in a positive way is necessary for our preservation.
NWR is committed to the preservation of humanity. This commitment
encourages us to illuminate meaning in our lives and combat all forms of
reductionism. We have hope that our future will be bright, but realize
that much needs to be done to prepare modern people for present and the
future world.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
[Send in your comments. They will be included in this section.]
__________
Extreme Reductionism: Theories of Everything
by Donavan Hall
"The theologians think they know the questions but cannot understand the
answers. They physicists think they know the answers but don't know the
questions." JOHN BARROW
Sometimes when we look around, open to the magnificence of world around us,
a quiet voice inside of us asks: where did it all come from? Why is
everything here? What possible answer can we give to such a question?
Most of us just shrug in the certainty that the world is here, an
inescapable fact, and we go on with our lives. Others who think more
deeply, try to give an explanation. Some theologians contend that a being
created the universe and established the natural laws; this being made
everything out of nothing. Some scientists say that at some finite time in
the past the physical configuration of the universe was such as to make the
idea of time an absurdity and out of this incomprehensible initial state
everything we know today came to be. On the surface there is not much
difference between the two views: both invoke unknowable initial
conditions. The development of the cosmos after the point of coming into
being is where science diverges from theology.
In their zeal to explain why everything is here, scientists have begun
asking questions about the very first seconds of creation. They are trying
to understand the physical laws that applied to conditions of the embryonic
universe. If a Theory of Everything (TOE) can be found which explains how
the present universe came about from that initial state , then hasn't some
explanation of why we are here been given? Some scientists, such a Stephen
Hawking, say yes. These scientists are only deluding themselves. Science
lacks the method of inquiry required to answer "why" questions. Explaining
that the initial state of the universe was this or that tells us nothing
about why it was in this or that initial state.
Let us take one step back. We asked if a TOE could be found? This is a
big question by itself. We should first consider whether such a theory is
possible.
Does a TOE exist? The answer to this question lies in science's ability to
formulate the theory and then test it experiementally. The Superconducting
Super Collider (SSC) was intended to be the next step in our search for the
Grand Unified Theory (GUT), the precursor to a TOE. The GUT would explain
electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces simultaneously. A TOE
would add gravity to the list of forces, thus explaining all the forces of
nature in a single theory. The demise of the SSC has not stopped the
flow of theoretical speculations about GUT's and TOE's in the scientific
journals. These theorists are pushing the scientific envelop in that they
are journeying far down the speculative road without the company of
experiment to check their way. Experimental verification of these theories
would require the construction of larger and larger colliders (even larger
than the SSC), a task that present technology and the world economy cannot
possible support. Without experiment, then we must find another way to
test whether the theorists are describing reality are just playing a very
elaborate mathematical game.
When inquiring about the possibility of explaining everything, we need to
have some idea of what we mean by the word "everything." Do we mean all
physical phenomena or every event, action, or process in the universe?
Science is clearly confined to addressing questions pertaining to the
physical realm of existence, but for some (materialists) the physical realm
is the only realm. Hawking would be very inclusive about what "everything"
means--everything that is real is physical. Many scientists adhere to the
position of materialism which denies the reality of that which is not
material. This might seem rational, but then ask yourself of what material
a thought or a feeling is made. Contending that thought is immaterial is
not a convincing answer for some, and thus the deeper problems related to
the nature of human consciousness must be explored. That can be done
elsewhere. Let us continue. But for our present discussion, let us assume
"everything" refers to material and physical processes.
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg gave a lecture a few years ago at Southern
Methodist University in which he told those of us in the audience that it
would not be long before physicists worked out the details of the GUT. He
described physics as a process of pealing layers off an onion of knowledge.
Each generation works to probe nature at smaller and smaller length
scales. He said it was inconceivable that this onion had an infinite
number of layers. At the center of the scientific onion is the TOE.
Weinberg's faith and optimism that the TOE will be found is commendable,
but his analogy betrays the true complexity of the task before science. If
science is suited for pealing off layers from knowledge onion, then how is
it to recognize the center when it gets to it? Might not science go on
pealing until nothing is left of the onion?
As an investigative discipline science explains things in terms of
components or "fundamental" parts. Disassembly of the fundamental object
is outside the purview of science; the fundamental object cannot be taken
apart or explained by simpler principles than itself. Perhaps philosophers
would call this fundamental principle Being. Clearly, we are getting into
waters where science is unequipped to swim.
Through the process of reduction, scientists proceed to describe how the
universe is put together. Beginning with any macroscopic object, it can be
reduced to "fundamental" constituents. My desk is made of wood. Wood is a
collection of molecules; molecules, a collection of atoms; atoms, a
collection neutrons, protons, and electrons. Neutrons and protons are made
of quarks. Electrons and quarks seem not to be made up of anything; they
have no internal structure. When internal structure is not discernible this
line of reasoning terminates. To leave our description of matter at this
stage does not satisfy the truly curious. How do we explain what a quark
or an electron is without reducing it to something more fundamental than
itself? Scientists can give an accurate account of the physical properties
of quarks and electrons, but they can never say what these particles are
without ultimately stepping outside science and into philosophy.
Theory has advanced beyond the experimenter's ability to check it. This is
a precarious position for a science to be in. Because of this, particle
physicists are becoming concerned about the future of their field. The
particle theorists working on GUT's and TOE's engage in a highly
mathematized philosophy. When theory gets too far beyond experiment it is
no longer science. Science is investigative, grounded in experiment.
Without experiment the development of thses theories must be considered a
non-investigative pursuit. They may conform beautifully to the
presuppositions that scientists have concerning what a GUT or a TOE should
look like, but they are nonetheless only well founded speculations not
certain knowledge of objectively existing objects. The lines dividing
philosophy and science have blurred in the search for GUT's and TOE's,
because it is here that the true character of scientific knowledge, that of
well founded opinion, is revealed.
Does it matter whether a TOE is out there to be found? Not really.
Searching for the ultimate or final theory has made us better scientists
and better humans. The benefit of the quest for the TOE is not the finding
but in the searching. Aristotle would likely agree as he says in the
Nicomachean Ethics that the highest pursuit is that which has an end in
itself.
__________
Looking Back
[This section is for an article on how things were in the past. Part of
looking forward to the future is knowing what has taken place and where
those past events have lead us. We can learn much about the future from a
consideration of history.]
__________
Scientific Currents
[This section is for items of current scientific interest. Send in
announcements of those cutting edge discoveries.]
__________
Books
[This section is for book reviews. Please include publisher and ISBN when
submitting reviews.]
__________
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM
requesting to be put on the mailing list.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM.
Essays should be 1000 words or less; book reviews 500.
copyright, 1994 NWR
magazines/NWR/nwr.1.2.txt
+208
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Idealetter
January, 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 2
Contents-
>From the Editor: The Future of Scientific Discovery
Communications: Send us your comments.
Feature Article: Top Quarks, Discovery or Invention
Scientific Currents: The Large Hadron Collider
Books: Tipler's The Physics of Immortality
___________
>From the Editor: The Future of Scientific Discovery
Welcome to the second offering of NWR. The staff has collected a few
interesting morsels for the hungry eyes of the starving Internet reader.
The subject of this issue takes aim at the nature of scientific discovery.
Are the objects of scientific inquiry real or imagined? A movement is afoot
which seeks to discredit science. (Gerald Holton has written a very good
book about this movement entitled, "Science and Anti-Science.") This seemingly
unassailable discipline is suffering attacks from those who think science
is nothing more than a sociological phenomenon with a content invented by
the immense creativity of the human mind. How could anyone maintain such a
position? Well, its hard to imagine anyone trained in science to propound
the notion that science is a fabricated set of interlocking ideas which
have nothing to do with reality. But, those who do defend this position
employ an ontological argument which has the potential to undermine any
realist system of philosophy if left unchecked. Below, the reality of the
top quark is defended against the nay-saying anti-scientists.
This is a pretty bizarre debate. Who would have ever come up with the idea
that the objects of scientific investigation are not real? Idealism is as
old as Plato and has persisted, even flourished, in the modern era of
philosophy which takes its cue from the critique of Descartes. Modern
idealists are more subtle than the Bishop Berkeley's of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. Instead of demanding that ordinary trees and rocks
are constructs of the human mind, the modern idealist contends that
sub-atomic particles and fields are mental figments. They contend that
anything we cannot directly experience is not real. Because we do not see
top quarks, because we cannot touch them, they cannot possibly have any
reality which is significant to the human race. The contention is that top
quarks only exist in particle accelerators because physicists put them
there. This type of reasoning pulls the rug out from under the scientific
enterprise.
Is this a serious threat to science? Perhaps. The future of science is in
the hands of the scientists. In the past, science has enjoyed a huge
latitude; the general public was willing to let scientists "do their thing"
unhampered by having to explain the worth or importance of their work. The
modern age has given birth to people who want to know what science is up
to. They do not trust science (and who can blame them after the atomic
bomb and cold fusion?); they question the value of science especially the
big ticket items like the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and the
Space Station. This skepticism of science is good. Science should not be
given free reign to do whatever it wants. Scientists should take the time
to explain their projects to people whose money supports these enterprises.
Perhaps the SSC would have been kept alive if the physics community had
done better P. R.
Let us know what you think. We have a section for communications. E-mail
us with your comments. Also do not forget to send in articles and book
reviews. Subscription information is at the end of this file.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
Send in your e-mail and comments. We'll put them here.
__________
Top Quarks, Invention or Discovery?
by Donavan Hall
Particle physicists have doggedly pursued the elusive top quark, the last
of six such particles predicted by the Standard Model, for two decades.
Last year a research group at Fermilab, the particle accelerator near
Chicago, announced it has found possible evidence for the existence of the
top quark. This announcement rocked the physics community, generating much
excitement and hope that this evidence would lead to more profound
discoveries about the universe in which we live.
You might be asking yourself what in the world a top quark really is and
how does one go about discovering it? (You can't see them.) How did
scientists know about top quarks to begin with? The Standard Model
predicts the "existence" of the top quark. This accepted model or theory
explains the structure of matter in terms of six quarks and six leptons
(note: an electron is an example of a lepton). Five of the six quarks in
the Standard Model have been observed. Failure to find the sixth and last
quark would have dealt a serious blow to the status of the Standard Model,
since scientists don't keep models that don't fit reality.
A subatomic particle is an object with a set of unique measurable
properties. For the top quark, the measurable properties consist of its
mass and decay products. Top quarks are short-lived particles that
spontaneously fly apart after a very short time. Particle physicists
identify possible top quark "sightings" by examining those sudden
decompositional events that have the proper energy. In Einstein's
relativity, energy is mass, so if the decay event has the right products
and the right mass, then the scientist says she has "seen" a top quark.
John Lukacs, a modern historian, stated in a New York Times Op-Ed piece (17
June 1993) his reasons for believing that subatomic particles, such as the
top quark and Higgs boson, were figments of the experimenter's imaginative
mind. If this is true, then scientists are simply engaging in an elaborate
game played with costly toys. But any sensible scientist would argue that
the objective existence of nature and fundamental particles is evident. By
denying the existence of material objects, Lukacs defies his own common
sense. A professor of mine once said that to know reality, all you have to
do is reach out and touch it. By this criterion Lukacs is out of touch
with reality.
Subatomic particles have extra-mental existence; they aren't fictions.
Given the proper conditions, top quarks are out there in the real world.
The source of Lukacs's confusion about existing objects might be rooted in
the way science discovers new things in the universe. It seems that the
physicist is making the particles that she has asserted must exist if the
universe is an orderly and logical place. The idea of the top quark
preceded the actuality of top quark, but this does not mean that top quarks
don't exist.
The particle theorists at Fermilab drew up a list of properties or
qualities that the top quark must have to fit the Standard Model. They
effectively define the essence of top quark, the "what it is to be" of the
particle. In our own experience, it seems that this essence is experienced
before the existing top quark; i.e., it seems that existence has been added
to the essence of top quarkness. This is not so. The essence of top quark
is not hovering around Fermilab waiting for existence to be added to it.
If this was true, then nonexistence would be the bedrock of existence,
which is an obvious contradiction of what we mean by existence.
Our idea of a top quark is not identical to any one top quark. Our ideas
are just that, our ideas, no-thing else. During the experiment at Fermilab
existing particles with a potency to produce top quarks during their
interaction in the experimental chamber, became the actuality that conforms
accidentally or essentially to our idea of a top quark. Top quarks are not
produced by the minds of physicists, but by natural interactions which take
place in particle colliders. A scientist's knowledge of reality is of that
which is real, existent. Any one who tells you otherwise has lost their
grip on reality.
__________
Scientific Currents
The construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European
Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) has been given the thumbs up. With
the US's Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in the junk heap, the LHC
will be the premiere facility for doing high energy physics. Experiments
are scheduled to begin in the new facility when its construction is
complete; researchers hope this date will be as early as 2004. The race
for confirming the top quark will be in full swing by this stage of the
construction. By 2008 the LHC will be able to operate at 14 TeV, which
will allow researchers to begin the search for the Higgs boson, the
particle which supposedly gives matter its mass. As of yet there is no
word whether the US will be involved, but US researchers will certainly be
part of the projects going forward on this new particle accelerator. [see
Science News: Jan. 7, 95] --Trevor Austin
__________
Books
The Physics of Immortality
FRANK J. TIPLER
Doubleday
ISBN 0-385-46798-2
Is there a God? Inquiring minds want to know. Tulane physicist, Frank
Tipler, is known for his fantastic theories. His joint effort with John
Barrow, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, set the stage for Tipler's
solo flight deep into the territory of theology. Tipler says numerous
times in this book that religion must be incorporated into science, then he
proceeds to show us how it is done. In a dizzying display of tactics,
Tipler manages to accommodate the belief systems of all the major world
religions in his Omega Point Theory while reducing all of them to
unenlightened superstition. The theology of physics which Tipler presents
is complete with a god, resurrection and afterlife, and a prognostication
of the future of life in the universe. If for nothing else, this book is
worth reading for its explanation of the physics of personal
immortality--try the argument out on your rabbi sometime!
Tipler is not a loony tune; he is serious about his theory and has provided
some predictions which can be checked by experiment. This is not one of
those pseudo science books written by paranoid hacks. Tipler presents his
fantastic ideas with level-headed dispassion. But regardless of whether
the physics of immortality pans out and the Omega Point Theory verified by
experiment, Tipler adds another important argument in the intellectual
struggle between science and theology. Tipler lays scientific claim to the
whole territory of theology. This ideological invasion is real and must be
answered by the theological community. Tipler has put together a
fascinating book which cannot simply be thrown aside and dismissed.
Aside from the fact that Tipler must be completely wrong, the book should
be read by anyone wishing to stay on top of the science/religion tension.
--David Fisher, NWR Religion Editor
__________
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM
requesting to be put on the mailing list.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays
should be 1000 words or less; book reviews 500.
copyright, 1995 NWR
magazines/NWR/nwr.1.3.txt
+83
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Idealetter
February 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 3
Contents-
From the Editor: The Future of Fusion Power
Communications
ÒPublic Support of ScienceÓ by Jack Lang
Scientific Currents: Biosphere 2, Comets and Chaos
Books
___________
From the Editor: The Future of Fusion Power
First, the News. Back issues of NWR are available via FTP from ftp.etext.org in the /pub/Zines/NewWorldReader directory. Check out our README there if you have any questions about this e-publication. The file also contains info about guidelines for submissions. In a few months we will begin maintaining a current index of NWR that will be kept at the ftp site. So keep you eyes pealed.
Those of you who have peaked in the January 13 issue of Science probably noticed the headline of an article in their News & Comment section: Future Grows Dim for Fusion. The power source of the future looks like it will probably have to wait a few more years before the long sought after commercially viable break-even reaction will be achieved. The setback is not due to some extremely difficult technical hurdle that has cropped up, but due to a more mundane cause--budget cuts. Excitement to produce a balanced budget in order to reduce the deficit has lead the current congress and the Clinton administration to look hard at some programs to see if they can be cut. The Department of Energy, the major source for Fusion funding, is anticipating significant cuts and preparing for them.
How important is it that the U. S.Õs budget deficit is reduced? Is a balanced budget more important than scientific research? We need to ask ourselves a few things about the future. What are things going to be like in fifty years? How do propose to feed, clothe, and provide electricity for over 10 billion people? Will we be worse off by trading technology like fusion power for a balanced budget?
For the optimistic futurist, fusion energy will be developed and will signal the beginning of a new age for humankind. Besides Earth based fusion power plants, fusion technology is our ticket to the stars. The Mirror Fusion Propulsion system promises to enable human exploration of our entire solar system. Transit times between Earth and other planets will be cut with this powerful engine from years to months. But why is space exploration so important? Are matters here on Earth more pressing than the colonization of space?
These are questions that will be considered in a future issue of NWR. This month, Jack Lang has provided us with an interesting argument why science should be a publicly supported enterprise.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
Please send your comments, complaints, observations, etc. to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM and they will be put here.
__________
Public Support of Science
By JACK LANG
Scientific research in the U. S. suffered a setback last November when the Republicans were given a majority in both branches of Congress. The financial support that science has enjoyed over the years is being threatened in the GOPÕs propaganda about cutting the budget deficit. This development raises some interesting questions about the relationship of science to the society who supports her. Should the public put every cent it can into supporting scientific research? Is science a good investment or can we do without research? What does the public get out of the research effort? If the scientific community is going to rely on the financial support of the public to underwrite research, then some convincing answers need to be given for these questions.
In the January 1994 issue of Physics Today, Roland W. Schmitt, chairman of the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics, enumerated four reasons why the public should support science: 1) the search for truth, 2) the endless frontier, 3) general utility, and 4) special benefits. Let us consider these reasons that Schmitt has put forward.
The search for truth appeals to the long tradition of searching for explanations of why the universe is put together the way it is. Schmitt points out quite correctly that the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) was not proposed as some whimsical, frivolous project dreamed up by the scientific community as a way to provide employment for high energy physicists. The atomists of ancient Greece were the first to pose the questions physicists hoped to answer with the SSCÐ What is the underlying structure of matter? Where did the universe come from? Why do we exist? As lofty as Òthe search for truthÓ sounds, for any scientist it is the foundational reason to engage in the scientific effort.
What about the endless frontier? The defining social force of the twentieth century is nationalism, a collection of possibly conflicting ideas about our social identity (who we think we are). One aspect of our national identity is our pioneer spirit. Our expansion across the North American frontier gave birth to the modern idea that it is our responsibility to conquer yet another frontier-- nature. Who doesnÕt like a good challenge?
The products of science are useful; they posses general utility. The utility of the technology derived from scientific research is enormous. Our way of life has changed in response to the incredible amount of work that machines do for us. It has been said that the appliances that are in every home are equivalent to approximately thirteen human servants. Arguably, technology has made it possible for us to enjoy a greater degree of freedom than our ancestors.
The special benefits of science refer to specific local populations that benefit directly from the support of science (this is often called pork). Employees of technology companies benefit from the money that goes to support scientific research and development. Because employees and corporations have the largest political voice, it is the special benefits of science on which our lawmakers concentrate. A congressperson is more likely to support a bad science project that will bring money to her district over a good science project that will not directly benefit her constituency. One of the many reasons the SSC failed was not that it was bad science, but because the special benefits were not seen to be equal with the cost.
Schmitt listed these reasons for supporting science in the order that scientists rank them (or should rank them). The public, lay people and congressmen, ranks the importance of these reasons in the reverse order so that special benefits are always the most important and the search for truth is hardly a consideration.
Science is not a private enterprise that benefits only a few people. As disappointing as the loss of the SSC was to many physicists it must be recognized that organizing large private scientific ventures is not the correct solution to this problem. Big science and monetary profit do not normally go together. The cancellation of the SSC outraged many physicists who felt betrayed by a public who simply did not understand the importance of their work. Cries were heard calling for scientists to figure out a way to privately support big science projects protecting them from the fickle public and wishy-washy congressmen. I wish to avoid the debate about how big science could gain the billions of dollars necessary to sustain the SSC or a space program as a private enterprise and concentrate on the more important point: disregarding whether big science could be sustained privately, it should remain a public enterprise. Science is a group effort done for the good and embetterment of humanity. Science is not a profit making, capital generating enterprise concerned with the production and proliferation of technology. If people do not care about the top quark then perhaps this is because the scientists have stopped talking politely with the public. Maybe if the public knew something about quarks they would be more interested in paying for their discovery.
Last year, Nobel prize laureate, Samuel C. C. Ting, gave a public lecture in the LSU Physics department entitled ÒIn Search of the Building Blocks of Nature.Ó He posed the question: ÒWhy should we do high energy physics?Ó After the lecture I realized that the ÒweÓ referred to physicists and not society at large because the reasons he put forward were a laundry list of all the ÒinterestingÓ discoveries that could be or have been made. If the scientist says to the lay person, ÒWe need to do high energy physics so that we can discover the Higgs boson," then the lay person is going to answer, ÒWhat in the world is a Higgs boson, and why should I care if you discover it?Ó Physicists get excited about the Higgs because they know what it is and what it represents. (It is the particle/field that imparts mass to other particles.) The lay person will only see the necessity of doing research in high energy physics when they appreciate the intangible benefits of scientific discovery.
The questions about the origin of matter and the existence of the universe will always be with us. Eventually, an SSC will be built and future generations will have the privilege of knowing what we have decided is not important for our generation.
__________
Scientific Currents
BIOSPHERE 2 GETS A FRESH START
The controversial enclosed ecosystem in Arizona known as Biosphere 2 is getting a second chance to do some useful science. The old management has been replaced by a new team of scientists who plan on using the biosphere as a laboratory for studying the dynamics of an ecosystem similar to that of Earth. No longer will Biosphere 2 be the home of new age biospherians trailblazing the way into the future of human habitations. [See Science 13 January 1995 p. 169.]
Biosphere 2 is a good example of what happens to science whenever basic research is done by a profit seeking corporation. The first incarnation of the project was not run with the necessary rigor a scientific experiment requires. Because of the inadequacies of the execution of the project, it did not produce any significant addition to the body of scientific knowledge. Of course, just because a scientific project is financially supported by the public does not protect against all the problems experienced by Biosphere 2. --Trevor Austin.
COMET AND ASTEROID IMPACTS CHAOTIC BUT NOT RANDOM
Geophysicist Herbert R. Shaw has come up with a theory based on nonlinear dynamics (chaos) which reveals that when comets and asteroids collide with the Earth they do not just impact in random locations on the planetÕs surface. Variations in the gravitational attraction between these celestial wanderers and the Earth due to the EarthÕs non uniform distribution of matter give rise to chaotic interactions between the two bodies. Order arises out of chaos and certain orbits are selected for the comet or asteroid. When the body collides with the Earth it is steered to particular sites and does not just land in any old place. Shaw has identified a pattern in the crater distribution on the EarthÕs surface. He proposed his chaotic model to account for this pattern. [See Science News 28 January 1995 p. 58] --Trevor Austin.
__________
Books
Send along your book reviews.
__________
NEXT ISSUE: The Immutable World of Religion
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM requesting to be put on the mailing list. Also current and back issues of NWR are available via FTP, GOPHER, or WWW at FTP.ETEXT.ORG in the directory /pub/Zines/NewWorldReader.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays should be 1000 words or less; book reviews and letters 500.
copyright, 1995 NWR
magazines/NWR/nwr.1.4.txt
+193
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition
March 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 4
Contents-
From the Editor: A New Liaison for NWR
Communications: Reader Robbed
Feature Article: ÒThe Immutable World of ReligionÓ by Danford Austin Hall
Scientific Currents: EinsteinÕs General Theory, The Top Quark
Have you noticed..?
Books:
___________
From the Editor: NWR Welcomes The Diagnostic Society
The staff here at NWR is proud to announce a merger with The Diagnostic Society. This will mean the addition two new sections to the monthly line-up: Short Story and Diagnostic Commentary. These sections will be added whenever short stories and corresponding commentaries are available. So let this serve as an announcement that NWR will be accepting fiction submissions, but read on--there are some guidelines.
For those not familiar with The Diagnostic Society (TDS), I will offer a brief history of its organization and purpose. Thomas Newland formed TDS in September of 1994 at Louisiana State University. The membership of the charter group meets biweekly to discuss books and ideas. The discussions aim to arrive at some understanding of humanity (human nature) as seen through the magnifying glass of fiction. The inspiration for this mission is an essay by Walker Percy entitled ÒPhysician as NovelistÓ which can be found in the collection of Percy essays called _Signposts in a Strange Land_ (The Noonday Press, 1992). In this essay, Percy describes the novelistÕs job as Òthat of a diagnostician. A diagnostician is a person who stands toward another person in the relation of one who knows that something has gone wrong with the other.Ó The novelistÕs job is to Òput his finger on the peculiar lesion of the age.Ó So the in the meetings of TDS, they read novels and short stories using them as an opportunity to explore the modern human condition. This is pretty broad and it is intended to be.
When I discussed the possibility of combining TDS with NWR, Tom admitted that the idea fit in rather well with what he saw TDS ultimately becoming--a forum where original fiction written by the membership would be presented and discussed. NWR will serve as a more public forum for the presentation of fiction and its thoughtful consideration.
How does this complement NWR? As stated in the first issue of NWR last November, the mission of this electronic magazine is to look to the future and see if we canÕt determine where the human race is headed. This future-gazing is done in the service of self examination inasmuch as our concept of the future forms who we are in the present. NWR seeks to understand the human condition with respect to our natural individual and sociological development through careful analysis of developments in science, philosophy, politics, etc. TDS aims at the same thing except by employing a different method through careful analysis of fiction.
NWR would be very happy to entertain short fiction pieces which illuminate some aspect of the human condition. Please contact us at our NEWORLDR@aol.com e-mail address if you have a short story you would like to contribute. Given the format of NWR short stories will need to be limited to less than 5000 words.
Notice that we have a new address for subscription requests SubNWR@aol.com. Please direct your requests for a free e-mail subscription of NWR to this address. This will aid us in sorting our submissions from subscriptions.
In this issue, we are pleased to present a look at the development (or lack thereof) of religion and a glimpse into our possible religious future. Together with an examination of how religion has affected human nature, Danford Austin Hall offers some humorous and frightening views of the state of what the human religious condition might be in the twenty-first century.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
HOLES IN CRATER COVERAGE
Mr. Austin:
I've enjoyed the material so far that the NWR has flung across the wires at me. On most levels, you are reasonably close to the standards you have set yourself. So it came as a bit of shock to find a rather large _hole_ in your review of Herbert Shaw's model of crater placement. Perhaps it is common knowledge, but I've no idea what the pattern is for craters on our own orb. Does debris from space all land naturally in W.Texas, Arizona, or the Australian outback?
My comments above may only highlight my own scientific ignorance, but that brings up another point. In some areas, Mr. Trevor, I'm counting on you to keep me informed, to filter out the trivial and erring. In reviews, therefore, I would like to see opinions along with survey. Do you buy Shaw's model? Does the scientific community? Enquiring minds want to know (and so do I).
Thanks for the effort so far.
David Branson
AUSTIN ANSWERS
The distribution of craters is roughly two interlocking circles both of which contain the north pole inside their perimeter.
To answer your questions: I think that ShawÕs model is a creative application of non-linear dynamics to explain ÒpatternsÓ in the global crater distribution. Whether the circular crater distribution which Shaw has uncovered is the result of a physical chaotic attractor or an active imagination I am not sure. Shaw has set up a theory where experimental verification of its basic assertions would be hazardous to well-being of life on the Earth. What I find most interesting about ShawÕs theory is the formative effects of the asteroid and comet impacts on the geophysical development of the Earth. For a partial explanation of this see the Science News article I referred to last issue (28 Jan 95 p. 58).
As for the geophysical community buying into ShawÕs ideas, I donÕt think you would describe their reception as warm and welcome. Shaw is a bit of an outcast it seems. If I may quote Ralph H. Abraham from the Science News article to illustrate this point: ÒThey [ShawÕs ideas] were rejected, vilified. ItÕs expensive to be a pioneer, to be a heretic.Ó
The scientific community is a careful, cautious body unwilling to throw itself headlong into the acceptance of a new theory. This cautiousness is a good thing because more bad theories are proposed than good ones. Bad theories are easier to invent than good ones. It is also very easy to look at nature (or anything) and see whatever one wishes to see. You will see below in the Scientific Currents section that these considerations come up in the context of a new criticism of EinsteinÕs general theory of relativity.
ShawÕs 600+ paged book is being published this month by Stanford University Press. If anyone would care to review it, our book review section is starving.
\\\ Send your comments, complaints, insights, etc. to NEWORLDR@aol.com ///
__________
The Immutable World of Religion
by DANFORD AUSTIN HALL
*Danford Austin Hall is an assistant professor of communication at Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, TX.
Solomon (possibly), circa 977 B.C.E (possibly) said, ÒThe thing that hath been it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.Ó (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
One of the attributes ascribed to God is immutability; nevertheless, this Unchanging Deity has endowed human creatures the prerogative of change by extending to humanity the gift of free will. While it is comforting to believe in the rock solidness of an Unmoved Mover, we can take little solace in our application of free will to improve the condition of humanity. First, letÕs consider the goal of religion as adumbrated in the Judeo-Christian tradition and consider if any real change has taken place; then, secondly, letÕs attempt to chart the course of religious belief and practice as we move into the 21st century.
The essence of religion as presented in the two testaments of the Bible is right relationships: humans are enjoined to Òlove God and to love their neighbors as themselves.Ó With this central teaching in mind, the question needs to be asked, ÒHas humanity made any significant changes in the period of recorded history that would show positive growth in the fulfillment of this basic religious teaching?Ó Sadly, we would have to concur with Solomon that Òthere is no new thing under the sun.Ó Humans and their nature have not changed according to the records that have been handed down to us. Scripturally, the history of murder begins when Cain kills his brother Abel; moreover, this homicidal bent has been honed until nations can kill other nations. Someone might argue that weapons of mass destruction are a mark of significant change in human history; however, murder is murder whether it is done to oneÕs literal sibling using oneÕs hands as weapons or whether it is committed by people under orders from a madman, like Hitler, using the latest, most sophisticated weaponry. (Could we move a bit closer to our own culture and ask, ÒWas it murder when President Bush slaughtered thousands of Iraqi children simply because his bumbling foreign policy had created the conditions which made another madman think he could invade Kuwait without any response by the nations of the world?Ó) In the area of human relations we can see that humans have not changed: We are as murderous, contentious, and strife-prone as we have ever been; furthermore, we are able through the use of technology to be more efficient in our carrying out of these malicious actions.
The second injunction given in the Older Testament is that humans are to love God and, here again, we see no change from the past: Humans have gone from belief in God, to belief in the divinity of humans, to the belief in nothing. Solomon had himself evolved through all of these phases, so he represents the past, present, and future of faith.
Loving God and believing in GodÕs existence have taken some interesting forms over the centuries; however, none of the variations represents a significant change in religious belief. Several years back people were distressed when some theologians announced, ÒGod is dead.Ó But that statement is no change from basic atheism, since whether God never existed or somehow died can hardly be represented as significant progress in our thinking about God.
Another variation that Solomon witnessed was the deifying of humans, which his nation did by the elevation of one of their own to the role of monarch. The Romans repeated this false worship of their rulers as divine; moreover, in our time such mortals as Elvis and Jim Morrison have been accorded divinity.
This deification of humanity can also be seen in our contemporary American cultureÕs fixation on the self, particularly the physical self, as the god to be worshipped. The worldview of these self-idolaters is a narcissus-like image of their own bodies.
Will America move on to belief in nothing? No, Americans will always believe in some myth greater than themselves. The religious myths of the 21st century will probably evolve into bizarre areas: The Corpus Christi Caller-Times (Jan. 21, 1995, p. B6) reported that currently nine ÒCowboyÓ churches are operating in the U.S. The country and western theme is stressed to the point of main importance. Everything about these churches centers around the cowboy/country-western theme. One of the ministers even admits, ÒOne time I talked about the book of Psalms, which mentions the musicians at Garth. You get it? Garth Brooks, the country singer.Ó
If I were given to prognostication, based on the above example of ÒCowboy Churches,Ó I would suggest the following possibilities:
1. Science Fiction lovers will probably move beyond the church originally founded for them (Church of Scientology) and develop churches for any or all of the popular television or movie science fiction series now extant or waiting to be popularized.
2. Good baseball fans will rally around St. Nolan Ryan, while those driven by the dark side will align with St. Peter, Pete Rose, that is.
3. Since we already have churches devoted to Elvis and Jim Morrison, I would think that other musicians or types of music will gain converts: GangstaÕ Rap will evolve into GospaÕ Rap.
The 21st century will not usher in the age of no belief; it will be the dawn of faith in anything or anyone. Faith will be cheap and easy. This fact is apparent right now: Is it easier for you to believe that Elvis lives or that Jesus lives?
__________
Scientific Currents
WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT?
Last year a researcher of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts University, Huseyin Yilmaz, made the amazing claim that EinsteinÕs general theory of relativity fails to yield solutions where two finite bodies attract each other. For those of you not familiar with general relativity--the theory exploits the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass to recast gravitation as curvature in spacetime. Massive objects curve spacetime more than lighter objects. The apparent attraction between two or more objects is explained as the tendency for each object to travel in straight lines on the curved spacetime--because of the curvature, a locally straight path could actually be globally a circle. Just think of an ant traveling in a straight line on the interior of a cylinder; the ant may think she is going straight ahead, but it is clear that she is bound to a circular or even helical path. EinsteinÕs interpretation of gravity differs from that of NewtonÕs--gravity is not a force at all, but rather just a peculiarity of the curvature of spacetime.
Obviously, if the general theory of relativity is meant to be a proper gravitational theory then one would expect it to produce solutions where finite objects were attracted to each other--apples should fall to the ground. Yilmaz and a colleague, Carroll O. Alley of the University of Maryland, have devised a new theory which they assert does not fail to produce the desired attractive solutions. So either Yilmaz and Alley are dead wrong or something is wrong with EinsteinÕs general theory of relativity.
Some of you might be scratching your heads thinking that if Einstein got his sums wrong back in 1915 when he introduced the theory, someone should have caught it before now--eighty years later! Unfortunately, the situation is much more complicated than that. The general theory of relativity is a very complex mathematical theory which demands the simultaneous solution of ten interconnected field equations which relate the curvature of a four dimensional spacetime to a stress-energy tensor. The equations are so complicated to solve that it can be safely said that probably no one person has ever understood the true meaning of the whole of what the equations are trying to describe including Einstein.
My saying that these field equations are complicated to solve is not an excuse for why it is possible to still find errors in the theory after four generations of physicists have been working diligently at them. EinsteinÕs general theory has met with a great deal of success in explaining the phenomenon of gravitation; it has stood up against every experimental test thrown at it and each time it has survived intact.
Because of the success of EinsteinÕs theory and the fact that so many proposed corrections or alternatives to the theory have failed to be as useful, the physics community is quite skeptical of the claims made by Yilmaz and Alley; many physicists dismiss their ideas altogether. This seems to be an odd situation in a branch of science which should be free of peopleÕs *opinions* about whether a theory is good or useful. If Yilmaz and Alley have calculated and shown that EinsteinÕs theory is lacking, then how can anyone disregard their claims? This is where the gulf between calculation and understanding becomes clear. In physics it is not good enough just to calculate, to work mathematical problems; one must interpret the equations, find out what the equations are saying. The physicist must discover meaning in the mathematics. Yilmaz and Alley may have done their calculations correctly (they have been checked by other physicists), but their assertions remain in doubt because they may be dealing with an unphysical situation. The model investigated by Yilmas and Alley involves the attraction of very large, thin, flat sheets of material in close proximity. The flat sheets themselves are not intrinsically unphysical, but there may be unforseen problems with such sheets, e.g. how would they remain rigid? Regardless of the specifics of the problem, it is clear that assumptions are being made about reality and these assumptions may not reflect what is physically possible. In short, their problem may be artificial in the sense that it could never happen in the real universe. Big deal if EinsteinÕs equations fail to give attractive solutions to an unphysical situation! As long as the equations yield good answers to physical situations, then EinsteinÕs theory holds.
My point here is not to decide whether Einstein or Yilmaz and Alley have the correct theory, but rather to clarify for those who are not in the sciences that just because theories are constantly being modified, improved, and even replaced, it does not necessarily follow that science is constantly changing its mind as new sociologically-dependent paradigms are introduced. Controversies and problems with theories such as general relativity and quantum mechanics have given fuel to the bonfire of accusations hurled against science that it is not attaining objective (and by implication, irrefutable) knowledge of what is really real. Science is rooted in a tradition which contains myriad ideas about the physical universe. As scientists learn more about the universe, their understanding of it will improve and theories which embody this understanding must change and grow or be replaced by better theories. The fact that theories are born and eventually die is not a testament to the vanity of the scientific pursuit, but evidence that science is probing more deeply the mysteries of reality and understanding them more completely. [See Science News, 3 December 1994 pp. 376-8] --T. Austin
THE LAST QUARK
ItÕs official! The existence of the top quark has been announced confidently. Previous tentative announcements about the possibility of the top quark having been observed have been replaced by a definative claim to having observed this heretofore elusive particle. The CDF and D0 collaborations at Fermilab made this announcement jointly, each giving its results and estimations of the top quark mass. This announcement comes after a great deal of analysis of data taken on millions of collision events. Both collaborations are certain of their results and assert that there is only a one in a million chance that what they observed was due to some spurious background events. [See Physics New Update #216, 3 March 1995]
__________
Have you noticed...?
This is a new section primarily for the physicists who read NWR. Below you will find titles and authors for some interesting journal articles noticed by the editorial staff. In the future we will be including some reviews of the most interesting articles in a new Journal Review section which will start next month. Also, if you have anything that you ran across and would like us to list it please send it along to NEWORLDR@aol.com. We encourage you to send any reviews of journal articles that are of special interest to you. This section is not restricted to physics articles or reviews. This monthÕs list simply reflects the interests of the editors: which are superconductivity, foundations of quantum mechanics, relativity (special and general), cosmology (quantum and other), etc. Let us know how this section could be made more useful.
-----European Journal of Physics.-----
1995 v 16 n 1
*Rothenstein, B.; & Balan, S. "Special relativity without clock synchronization." Page: 31
-----Physics Reports.-----
JAN 01 1995 v 251 n 3 / 4
*Brenig, Wolfram. "Aspects of Electron Correlations in The Cuprate Superconductors."
-----Physical Review Letters.-----
FEB 13 1995 v 74 n 7
*Burko, Lior M.; & Ori, Amos. "Are Physical Objects Necessarily Burnt Up by the Blue Sheet inside a Black Hole?" Page: 1064
*Dando, P.A.; Monteiro, T.S.; & Taylor, K.T." Beyond Periodic Orbits: An Example in Nonhydrogenic Atoms." Page: 1099
FEB 20 1995 v 74 n 8
*Hinde, D.J.; Dasgupta, M.; & Timmers, H. "Fusion-Fission versus Quasifission: Effect of Nuclear Orientation." Page: 1295
*Castellani, C.; & Grilli, M. "Comment on 'Effects of Strong Coulomb Correlations on the Phonon-Mediated Superconductivity: A Model Inspired by Copper Oxides'." Page: 1488
*Yudson, V.I. "Lateral Magnetization of Mesoscopic Metal Rings and Cylinders Threaded by a Magnetic Flux." Page: 1407
*Kawaji, Hitoshi; Horie, Hiro-omi; & Ishikawa, Mitsuo. "Superconductivity in the Silicon Clathrate Compound (Na,Ba)xSi46." Page: 1427
*Roddick, Eric; & Stroud, David. "Effect of Phase Fluctuations on the Low-Temperature Penetration Depth of High-Tc Superconductors." Page: 1430
-----Superconductor Science & Technology.-----
FEB 01 1995 v 8 n 2
*Reddy, R. Ravinder; Muralidhar, M.; & Reddy, P. Venugopal. "The relationship between the porosity and elastic moduli of the Bi-Pb-2212 high-Tc superconductor." Page: 101
-----Physics Letters A.-----
FEB 06 1995 v 197 n 5 / 6
*Dieks, D. "Physical motivation of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics." Page: 367
*Vignale, G.; & Mashhoon, B. "Persistent current in a rotating mesoscopic ring." Page: 444
*Nam, S.B. "Pairing theory of high Tc and low Tc superconductors." Page: 458
FEB 13 1995 v 198 n 1
*Kernaghan, M.; & Peres, A. "Kochen-Specker theorem for eight-dimensional space." Page: 1
FEB 20 1995 v 198 n 2
*Mikhailovskii, A.B. "Toroidal plasma rotation in a rippled tokamak." Page: 131
*Angelucci, A.; Sorella, S.; & Poilblanc, D. "Large physical spin approach for strongly correlated electrons." Page: 145
FEB 27 1995 v 198 n 3
*Capelle, K.; & Gross, E.K.U. "Relativistic theory of superconductivity." Page: 261
-----Physical Review B: Condensed matter.-----
JAN 15 1995 v 51 n 4
*Andreoni, Wanda; Giannozzi, Paolo; & Parrinello, Michele. "Molecular structure and chemical bonding in K3C60 and K6C60." Page: 2087
FEB 01 1995 v 51 n 6
*Tralshawala, N.; Zasadzinski, J.F.; & Gray, K.E. "Tunneling, alpha2F(omega), and transport in superconductors: Nb, V, VN, Ba1-xKxBiO3, and Nd1.85Ce1.15CuO4." Page: 3812
*Song, Jinsuk; & Annett, James F. "Electron-phonon coupling and d-wave superconductivity in the cuprates." Page: 3840
*Lee, J.D.; Kang, Kicheon; & Min, B.I. "Correlation-enhanced electron-phonon interaction in a strongly correlated electron system." Page: 3850
*Varelogiannis, Georgios. "Superconducting critical temperature for realistic couplings." Page: 3941
FEB 15 1995 v 51 n 7
*Appenzeller,J.; Schapers, Th.; & Luth, H. "Aharonov-Bohm effect in quasi-one-dimensional In0.77Ga0.23As/InP rings." Page: 4336
-----Physics of the Solid State.-----
JAN 01 1995 v 37 n 1
*Ktitorov, S.A.; & Shalaev, B.N. "Influence of lattice effects on the critical behavior of type-II superconductors in a magnetic field." Page: 94
-----Physica C. Superconductivity.-----
JAN 15 1995 v 241 n 3 / 4
*Stoppard, O.; & Gugan, D. "The low-field AC susceptibility of type-II superconducting thin films." Page: 375
FEB 01 1995 v 242 n 1 / 2
*Sutliff, J.A.; Specht, E.D.; & Goyal, A. "The effect of colonies of aligned grains on critical current in high-temperature superconductors." Page: 164
__________
Books
Send us your book reviews. We are soliciting reviews of Roger PenroseÕs _Shadows of the Mind_ and David Bohm and Basil HileyÕs _The Undivided Universe_.
__________
NEXT ISSUE: The Deification of Humanity
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to SubNWR@AOL.COM requesting to be put on the mailing list. Also current and back issues of NWR are available via FTP, GOPHER, or WWW at FTP.ETEXT.ORG in the directory /pub/Zines/NewWorldReader.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays and Scientific Currents should be 1000 words or less; book, journal reviews, and letters 500. Short stories up to 5000 words in length will be considered.
copyright, 1995 NWR
magazines/NWR/nwr.1.5.txt
+429
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,429 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition
April 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 5
Contents-
From the Editor: The Critique of Science
Communications:
Feature Article: The Deification of Humanity
Short Fiction:
Diagnostic Commentary: 1995 Walker Percy Symposium
Scientific Currents:
Books: Science as Salvation by Mary Midgley
___________
From the Editor: The Critique of Science
Paul R. Gross, University Professor of Life Sciences and Director of the Center for
Advanced Studies at the University of Virginia, pointed out the two main problems
that face science in his article in the February 1995 APS News entitled "Scientists
Can't Afford To Ignore the Writing on the Wall." The two main problems as
perceived by the public are "(a) communications by 'science' with the public, that
which, they remind us, pays for it all, and to which we fail to explain what we do
and why; and (b) honesty."
Who is the public? Certainly not your average TV watcher. The public which Gross
is talking about are the makers and shapers of public opinion: the politicians, the
columnists, the social "scientists," the lawyers, and the comedians.
Gross' solution for dealing with this critique is to recruit a qualified force of
individual who can answer the criticism. He describes the people who should do
the talking: "They should include, at least, getting a decent number of scientists--
notable, *working* scientists--to stop what they're doing and become synthesizers,
writers, arguers with lawyers and politicians, competents in discourse of policy, the
humanities, and the social sciences, *as well as* in science."
The important idea here is not writing and arguing but synthesis. Science needs
people capable of bringing ideas together. As John Locke so astutely pointed out,
real genius is not seeing that this or that is true, but seeing the connection between
the two. If science does not make room for those with the talent for synthesis, then
the critique will go unanswered and the future could be dim for science. Gross's
warning should be heard and considered seriously. Science has enjoyed a privileged
position for a long time now. Perhaps a synthesis of important ideas in science and
the humanities will deliver science from this critique by finding a more realistic
position for science to occupy. Perhaps it is the wild hubris of science, the pretence
to authority, which endangers it most. When science sets itself up as the savior of
mankind, it is setting itself up for a dangerous fall. This is the topic of consideration
for this issue, below Jack Lang has a discussion of "The Deification of Humanity"
which takes on this problem science setting itself up to answer all of humanities
great questions.
I have a few announcements to make concerning NWR. Those of you who have
been reading this humble electronic journal since last November have seen it go
through some changes. At our editorial meetings, we have joked that our mission
seems to be changing with each issue. The mission certainly has changed
completely from NWR's original conception back in 1992. Last month, when we
joined together with The Diagnostic Society we changed our subtitle to "An
Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition." Even though
we tend to discuss science a great deal and aim much of the content of NWR to the
scientific community, we mean for this to be a publication devoted to stimulating
discussion about humanity. Science is one aspect of humanity; it is an activity
humans engage in. As I was talking with Thomas Newland, he pointed out that
Walker Percy once asked the question: "Who is watching the scientists?" Isn't it
amazing that we humans do science? Why is that? I have never seen a
chimpanzee studying the universe! Perhaps NWR as it struggles for identity can
find it in looking at this phenomenon of humanity and trying to understand what
we humans are up to. This leaves our mission wide open and provides room for a
great deal of interpretation. So if you have some thoughts on the subject of humans
and their activities, please share them with us.
The next announcement is of a practical nature. Our publisher, Donavan Hall, who
is our ticket onto the Internet, is working on setting up a World Wide Web
connection for NWR, so soon you will be able to access NWR in a hypertextual
format. The first couple of issues have been prepared and are available at
http://goodrich.phys.lsu.edu/NWR/nwr_index.html. This WWW server is "part
time" in the sense that it is not always running due to the fact that when it is being
used as a data taking device the HTTP software is disabled. So if you try to make a
connection and fail, just try again later. Also, if you would like to receive a
hypertextual version of NWR via e-mail, let us know. The hypertext versions will
be tested on Mosaic 2.0.0 Beta 3. We know that Web browsers such as MacWeb 1.0
will not be able to read the files properly as it doesn't support the latest version of
HTML.
We hope you enjoy this month's NWR and we would love to hear from you.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
\\\Send your comments to NWR at NEWORLDR@aol.com.///
__________
The Deification of Humanity
By JACK LANG
Science, the God-Maker
"How science has made a god of humanity" could be another title of this
short essay. The idea that man has sought to become like God or to posses the
power of a god is not new--history is replete with world-historic figures who have
stepped forward to claim ultimate power for themselves. A seemingly benign
manifestation of the wish to be a god is egocentrism. Take this to the extreme and
you have solipsism. If you were the only conscious being in the universe, then
wouldn't you be God? How do we know of the consciousness of others? The Self
has a view on the universe which no one else can share. It sees itself at the very
center of all things. Everything that happens, happens in full view of the Self.
Events that take place outside of its sensing are somehow secondary to the primary
reality which it directly knows. The Self begins to view itself as omnipotent and
omniscient. This view is vanity to all but the insane; we always have a sneaking
suspicion that others are just like we are.
Gaining control over a few nations or the bias that we are the center of
existence is not wholly satisfying. Man has developed a method by which true
deification of the Self can be accomplished; this method is science.
The shift in the role of science from the discovery of nature to the control of
nature began about three hundred years ago. The methods of science were honed,
and it was realized that the cosmos was an orderly place. Science possessed the
necessary power to predict events, and with prediction came control. With control
over nature man placed himself in the same position as God--as the arbiter of
natural events. Francis Bacon stated that knowledge is power; to know nature is to
control nature, to use it to one's own benefit. This worldview developed in the
context of Cartesian idealism. Descartes's statement "I think; therefore, I am" made
it possible for man to eliminate God from the picture entirely and to step into His
place. Descartes began his philosophy with the principle that he would doubt
everything until he found that which he could not doubt; upon that indubitable
proposition he would base his worldview. He decided that the most sure thing was
that the fact that his thinking and reasoning proved his existing. This was the anti-
Copernican revolution. The center of being was relocated from "out there" to inside
our minds. The relocation set the stage for the deification of humanity. To explore
how science accomplishes this deification, let us first consider what deification
means.
Five characteristics are commonly attributed to God: (1) immortality, (2) that
God is the creator of all things, (3) omniscience, (4) omnipresence, and (5)
omnipotence. Science promises all these to humanity. The guarantee of science is
that it will by its power deliver these gifts to man just as Prometheus delivered the
gift of fire.
We should bear in mind the problem of being a deity is that we must then
find meaning within ourselves; meaning for the god is identical to its being. We are
faced then with a difficult task: the creation of meaning.
The Pretence to Authority
Science is the most aggressive of the academic disciplines in its claim to
intellectual authority. The practitioners of science have worked hard to secure a
position of irrefutability in the world of knowledge. Scientists appeal to the
objectivity of observation. How can one argue about the way things are? The laws
of nature are points of fact that can be discovered and understood but cannot be
argued with. Thus the scientist when she is certain that she is absolutely right will
proclaim to the world her discovery and defy anyone to say that she is wrong. This
scientific authority is achieved through impartiality. The scientist pretends not to
have any personal emotional attachment to any preconceived notion of how the
universe should work. In their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John
Barrow and Frank Tipler write, "Whereas many philosophers and theologians
appear to possess an emotional attachment to their theories and ideas which
requires them to believe them, scientists regard their ideas differently." Mary
Midgley, in her Science as Salvation, asks in response to Barrow and Tipler, "Do
they then mean that scientists have no duty to take seriously the things they put
into print?" Barrow and Tipler cite "emotional attachment" to theories as a
weakness. Tipler takes detachment to its extreme when he says of his Omega Point
theory (which we will discuss later) that he is just presenting facts; he would be just
as happy as his detractors to find a legitimate experiment which would contradict
his conclusions. Tipler makes this claim with impunity knowing full well that
many generations will pass away before we are technologically advanced enough to
test his theory. Until we know otherwise, who can argue with the facts?
For at least the last five hundred years science and religion have been at odds.
The point of contention is the claim to certain knowledge and ultimate authority.
Given the vastly different subject matter of theology and science, it is not readily
detectable what the source of competition would be. If religion and science are
viewed properly with respect to their aims, this competition is meaningless. But
religion and science are both guilty of making attempts to invade each other's
intellectual territory. One of the territorial lines that seems to be in dispute is the
question of human mortality. Both theology and science aim to deliver mankind
from death--they each promise immortality.
Immortality
Religion, unlike science, claims immortality for the individual. The spirit
lives on after the body passes away. Science, not being able to comment on the
spiritual self as it evades scientific observation, denies the existence of the spirit and
ascribes immortality to the human race as a whole. The object of science then is to
equip man with the tools necessary for his collective perpetuation. If science cannot
discover a way to extend immortality to biological humans, it will content itself
with the development of mechanized humans, computers and machines will be the
logical evolutionary descendants of the human race.
In the title of his recent Scientific American article, Marvin Minsky asks,
"Will Robots Inherit the Earth?" His answer is supplied in the teaser, "Yes, as we
engineer bodies and brains using nanotechnology. We will then live longer, possess
greater wisdom and enjoy capabilities as yet unimagined." Who is the "we" of
which Minsky is speaking? He certainly is not talking about humanity since he goes
on to say that "Once delivered from the limitations of biology, we will decide the
length of our lives--with the option of immortality--and choose among other,
unimagined capabilities as well." The limitations of biology? Humanity is
biological. To eliminate biology is to dispense with life.
Tipler has worked out an elaborate theory as to how through science
humanity or even individuals will be able to enjoy immortality when the Omega
Point arrives. What is this Omega Point that keeps cropping up? The actual term
Omega Point was introduced by Teilhard de Chardin to indicate the end of time.
Such terms are useful in teleology. Tipler has adopted the term as the title of his
own theory about the end of time. He argues that we must consider the universe as
a whole whenever we make our scientific (and philosophical) inquiries into its
nature. That the universe is a spacetime object requires us not only to consider all
of space as the whole but all of time as well. This is where Tipler starts to get
creative. He speculates that human beings or their mechanized offspring will
spread throughout the entire universe and inhabit every possible nook and cranny
of all that is. Humanity will be able to stretch out its hand and grasp "the whole" of
existence. Depending on which version of the end of the universe you like, one can
then imagine that such a life form which has made it presence known everywhere
would be likely to make some attempt to avert the natural demise of the cosmos.
Since human life will be everywhere it is reasonable to think that it would have
some role to play on the cosmic scale. Tipler imagines that our descendants (billions
of generations distant) will be able to come up with a way of perpetuating the
universe. This, as Tipler attempts to demonstrate, will lead them to "resurrect"
everyone who has ever lived to inhabit this eternal place which we have made for
ourselves. We will eventually give immortality to ourselves. We are not God right
now, but someday we will be. This is Tipler's Omega Point theory and, of course, he
has equations to prove it.
Man as Creator
The anthropic principle in its strongest form places primacy on the necessity
of conscious observers in the universe. Some proponents of this principle go so far
as to say our observing of the universe today plays a profound role in forming the
universe.
According to John Wheeler, the physicist who coined the term "black hole,"
"Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of
dynamic development it gives rise to oberservership. Acts of observer-participancy -
- via the mechanism of the delayed choice experiment -- in turn give tangible
'reality' to the universe not only now but back to the beginning." Thus the
observations of a few physicists have given shape and form to the universe. We
have created ourselves in an act similar to Baron von Munchausen lifting himself
into the air by his bootstraps.
This defiance of natural causality can only be achieved when science
abandons ontological interpretations of her theories in favor of epistemological
interpretations. The most recent shift to epistemological interpretations in science
came this century when scientist began grappling with the ideas of quantum
mechanics. The work of Niels Bohr and others established the reigning
interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) as it is
called. The CI is riddled with all sort of problems and inconsistencies with our
experience. This is not because quantum mechanics is weird, but because quantum
mechanics has been interpreted in such a way as to make it appear weird.
Now let's take a look at how science delivers the remaining characteristics of
God to man.
The Four O's: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and the Omega Point
Neo-man will be mechanized. This is the consistent message that scientists
(who engage in this sort of speculation) give us. Von Neuman probes will go forth
and populate galaxies and star systems on our behalf. The penultimate point in the
development of neo-man is called by Barrow and Tipler, the Omega Point. Life,
human life, they explain "will have stored an infinite amount of information,
including all bits of information which it is logically possible to know... A modern-
day theologian might wish to say that the totality of life at the Omega Point is
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient." Is this real science or have Barrow and
Tipler watched too many reruns of Star Trek? In the course of researching this
essay, I ran across Mary Midgley's book, _Science_as_Salvation_ (reviewed below),
which puts this sort of thinking in perspective. One doesn't have to agree with
every one of Midgley's complaints to see the point of her argument--scientists who
go this far into futuristic speculation are getting into dangerous areas and arriving at
bizarre conclusions, all cloaked in an undeserved air of authority. It is this pretense
to scientific authority which makes this sort of speculation so sickening. If, as
Midgley points out, Barrow and Tipler were writing science fiction there may be
some excuse for their claims, but it is clear that they don't view their work to be
taken simply as entertainment. So what do we do with them? Are they really doing
any harm? Does the public actually pay attention to these futurists? These are
difficult questions and hard to assess quantitatively, but if Internet newsgroups are
any indication of whether these ideas are making it out into the "public," then we
can conclude these futurist ideas have a great deal of appeal. This sampling might
be skewed since those on the Internet seem to be by in large sympathetic to
technological speculation. A need for responsible scientists to come forward and
offer intelligent counter arguments to those of the futurists certainly exists.
Information versus Real Things
This Omega Point is the natural conclusion of thinking that the universe is
Information and our sole functions as humans is to be possessors of Information.
Minsky in his article talks about Wisdom, but when he refers to mental powers he
discusses the human capacity for memorization. Midgley says that information
gathering is not an end in itself, it is to be used for something. Gaining an education
does not aim at simple information consumption; an education is learning how to
think for ourselves. This was one of the goals of the Enlightenment, to be self-
sufficient thinkers. The modern descendants of the Enlightenment have gotten the
message garbled and profess that the fulfillment of life is full conversion into
information acquisitors. Science teaches the collection of data is the goal and in turn
teaches students to simply acquire the data without trying to understand it. The
problem with understanding is that it is subjective. Not everyone understands in
the same way. No one can understand something for you. Inasmuch as science
seeks to be objective, then understanding is outside of science. What is to be
understood about a collection of facts? To be human is to respond and ask the
question: How do I live my life in light of these facts?
Re-entry into the Real World: The Advantages of an Ontological Interpretation
We have taken an excursion into the realm of epistemological thinking and
seen the sort of problems that arise when the observer is placed in the position of
being the judge of all that is. All these problems are cured with a proper ontological
interpretation of physical reality. In an ontological interpretation man takes his
proper place in the order of things--not outside of the order to breathe being into it
by knowing.
Humanity cannot be made into a god, nor can individuals be deified without
adopting a faulty metaphysics. When man finds himself back in the order of things,
then he can begin again to search for meaning with a new hope that he will find it
in the reality that exists outside and apart from his own existing.
__________
Short Fiction
\\\Send your fiction to NWR at NEWORLDR@aol.com.///
__________
Diagnostic Commentary: 1995 Walker Percy Symposium
by Thomas Newland
In the small town of Covington, LA home of one of America's greatest novelists
and semioticians, a group of about a hundred friends and admirers gathered in the
rustic Masonic Hall to honor the memory of Walker Percy and celebrate his "knack"
for writing. This year's symposium is the fourth annual gathering of Percy fans and
scholars. The event began two years after the author's death and is organized by the
Public Library of St. Tammany Parish.
This year's symposium featured Dr. Edward Dupuy, a recent graduate of LSU and
Director of Communications at St. Joseph Abbey, who spoke on "The Enduring
Percy Legacy." Other presentations were made by Brady Fitzsimmons, a poet and
Judge; Suzanne Parson did an interpretive reading of a selection from _The
Moviegoer_; Fr. Patrick Samway, Percy's official biographer, spoke on a period
during Percy's medical training during which Percy received psychiatric counseling.
Fr. Samway's presentation will form part of the upcoming biography of Percy which
should soon be published. The most exciting presentation of the day was given by
Henry P. Mills, a Percy scholar currently working on a book entitled
_Worldviews_in_Revolution_, who has established in cooperation with the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill a World Wide Web site which is
devoted to providing information about Walker Percy to the Internet community.
Mills has many plans for the Walker Percy Internet Project which you can read
about on the WWW at http://sunsite.unc.edu/wpercy/.
As I talked with Patrick Samway during the reception which followed the
symposium our conversation strayed to a topic that might be of general interest: that
of observership in novels. Invoking the popular metaphor from quantum theory
that we live in a participatory universe, Samway described a reader's approach to
and experience of a novel as being shaped by the existential situation he finds
himself in while reading. He went on to say that critics never take this into account
when they review a book. Each reading of the book is a different experience.
If I may be allowed to use Samway's comments as a springboard to launch us into a
specific direction, let's ask the questions, "What is a novel and how is it like a
quantum object?" A novel before it is read is a potentiality, a space/time event
waiting to happen and residing in some indeterminate state. The reader must pick
up the book and read it, measure it. In this act the reader determines content of the
novel by fusing the collage of images contained therein with his own gestalt. The
reader's experience of the action can differ greatly from those of the author. What
the reader gets out of the novel is dependent on his interpretation which is
ultimately based on his own experiences. As the reader's experiences change,
successive readings of the novel may produce different impressions; in physical
terms a series of measurements could produce a distribution of results.
Viewing a novel as a participatory event can also give us some insight into how to
view the universe properly. Even though our experience of the universe is largely
participatory in that our experiences shape our present and in some complex way
form our future, we cannot conclude from this that our act of participation is the
creative act which brings the universe into being. The universe still stands outside
of us as an objective reality like the events contained in a novel. We do not create
the universe anymore than the reader writes the book in his act of reading.
__________
Scientific Currents
__________
Books
Science as Salvation: a Modern Myth and its Meaning
by Mary Midgley
Routledge, 1992
ISBN 0-415-06271-3
It is becoming somewhat fashionable for scientists to write books about the future.
The popularity of the anthropic cosmological principle has given license to science
to engage in something that heretofore has been looked down upon--wild,
unfounded speculation. Mary Midgley, a moral philosopher, takes on this cottage
industry of scientific fortune tellers and their army of crystal balls and exposes the
fallacies in the Omega Point theories of John Barrow and Frank Tipler, the
inconsistencies in Freeman Dyson's futuristic mythology, and the misdirections of
many other attempts in the history of science to invade the intellectual territory of
religion to provide humanity with meaning for its existence.
Some parts of the book seem to stray into some of the author's pet areas, such as a
seemingly feminist attack on the male violence of science. Even though one might
get a strange feeling that Midgley is trying to tear down the venerable edifice of
science in these passages, that's not really what she is doing. She has a deep respect
for science--science done properly and directed to some useful end. She makes a
plea to science to put is house back in order and concentrate on real problems like
preserving our ecosystem rather than fantasizing about the end of the universe and
how we humans are going to colonize the galaxy.
Midgely has an important point to make with respect to the Bernal's, the Haldane's,
and the Tipler's of science, but how much of a problem is this that she has
identified? The future fantasists are an extreme minority in science and for the
most part of looked down upon by their contemporaries. Most of these scientists
have been encouraged by the apparent blessing of Enrico Fermi and Paul Dirac.
These early father's of physics were justified in speculating about life in the universe
and the future of the cosmos, but their off-spring have gone too far. Despite the fact
that Tipler and Dyson are clearly a minority in science, they are certainly more in
the public eye then your run of the mill scientist who is working on trying to save
the ecosystem from destruction. The fantastic ideas which sell books and capture
the imaginations of nerdy teenagers must be dealt with and put in their proper
place. These scientists may mean well, but their ideas stand in the way of people
discovering true meaning in their lives. Midgely desperately wants science to stop
the insanity and return to productive thinking and problem solving. Leave the
moralizing to the philosophers and theologians.
__________
NEXT ISSUE:
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to SubNWR@AOL.COM
requesting to be put on the mailing list. Also current and back issues of NWR are
available via FTP at FTP.ETEXT.ORG in the directory
/pub/Zines/NewWorldReader.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays
should be 1000 words or less; book reviews and letters 500. Short stories up to 5000
words in length will be considered.
Donavan Hall, Publisher
Danford A. Hall, Senior Editor
Trevor Austin, Editor
Jack Lang, Managing Editor
Adam Fisher, Religion Editor
Red Drake, Subscription Coordinator
Denise Hall, Editorial Assistant
copyright, 1995 FMI Publishing
magazines/NWR/nwr.1.6.txt
+324
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,324 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition
May 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 6
This month's quote: "Mellontolatry, or the worship of the future, is a fuddled
religion." --C. S. Lewis
Contents-
From the Editor: On the Possibility of World Government
Communications
Feature Article: "The Final Frontier" by Randal Duff
Political Futures: Government by Pledge
___________
From the Editor: Are we ready for World Government?
It is difficult to go very long without hearing something about the "global
community." Those of us on the Internet can experience the global community just
by frequenting the newsgroup of our choice. There we can find conversations,
arguments, flame-wars, going on between people from all across the world.
Everyone with a TCP/IP connection has achieved "equality" regardless of race,
religion, gender, or color. When we talk about community though, we are
discussing the relationship between individuals and a group of other individuals
who can be communicated with either collectively or singly. So the global
community on the Internet is a community of people. What of a community of
nations? Can there be such a thing?
The world can be divided (but perhaps not very well) into two kinds of states: those
striving to be members of a global community and those states who desire to remain
autonomous in order to protect their cultural heritage--language, ethnicity,
customs. The first sort wish to establish an economic community, an environment
in which trade and business can flourish. These kinds of nations value their
standard of living more than their culture. When the trade routes open to other
nations the import and export of culture is inevitable--just look at the
westernization of countries like Japan, while middle eastern countries try like mad
to keep this sort of "corruption" from entering their society.
John Lukacs, in his History of the Twentieth Century, say that the twentieth
century's defining characteristic is nationalism. I am certain that there are plenty of
historians which would like to argue with Lukacs. But if Lukacs is not too far off the
mark might there not be a shift toward globalism in the twenty-first century? Might
not nationalism give way to globalism--a sense that all people are equal and we all
live on this same small global spinning around the sun and that fact somehow
unites us all. Environmental awareness leads to a simplistic form of globalism.
Would globalism ultimately lead states to renounce their sovereignty to a larger
political organism? Does globalism lead naturally to World Government?
A community of nations may not be a practical possibility. Associations, treaties,
agreements, can be made between nations, but true community lies just outside the
capacity of nations. Inherent in community is a "feeling" of unity or connectedness.
Communities like families are bound together by the mutual love of individuals. A
nation is a collection of individuals and lacks the collective capacity for feelings such
as love. So a group of nations can enter into a relationship, but their ties would not
be strengthened by the bounds of love and as such can enter into true community.
A truly global community relies on the relationships of individuals not the nations
which act for the individuals in matters of state. So, I would say that, no, globalism
does not necessarily lead to World Government. Nations act in the best interest of
nations not of individuals. Thus it would be highly unlikely that a World
Government could be established which would naturally aim at first providing
individuals with the best quality of life; rather nations will come together provide
the best conditions for nations to prosper. This indirectly leads an improvement of
the quality of the lives of some individuals, but makes not assurances of a universal
provision of good quality of life.
Part of looking to the future, is imagining what form our government will take as
peoples attitudes and perceptions change. So to provide a form for this sort of
future gazing we are going to provide a section in NWR for you to tell us what you
think politics will be or should be like. Two years ago when we were developing the
concept for NWR, current events and politics were to be a main component of this
little publication. Now, Ed Blakely is joining our staff as the Politics Editor, he will
be taking over this new section: Political Futures. He is asking for you to send in
your suggestions on how you would change the government here in the US or in
some other country, in addition to your ideas on what will happen to politics in the
twenty-first century.
To warn you--next month's issue of NWR will be on the topic of television. Jack
Lang's got an essay in the works on the effect television has had on the human
condition. If you have any thoughts on the subject of television, even if its only a
few words, let us hear them.
Just to remind you, NWR has a World Wide Web page now. If you would like to
check it out it is at "http://goodrich.phys.lsu.edu/nwr/nwr_index.html".
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
\\\Send your comments to NWR at NEWORLDR@aol.com.///
__________
The Final Frontier
By RANDAL DUFF
The first era of space exploration ended because we had no compelling reason to
maintain a human presence in space. National pride and the Cold War propelled
the space age of the sixties and seventies. Once the United States established
dominance in space, the public perceived that the space program had lost its raison
d'etre. Of course, scientists know what to do with a space program--study the
universe. Pragmatic reasons for doing such studies are not necessary for scientists
who view investigation and exploration as an end in itself. However, some
pragmatism is necessary to justify the expense of billions of dollars on a space
program to a public called upon for its financial support. What will the taxpayers
get for their investment? If scientists are to establish a program which seeks to
maintain the active presence of humans in space, they must come up with valid
reasons for implementing it.
Olaf Stapleton, a philosopher and author, stated in 1948 three motives for
maintaining a human presence in space: to exploit available physical resources, to
increase human control over the environment, and to make the "most" or "best" of
humans. In addition to Stapleton's motives, others are: to escape overpopulation
and pollution of Earth, to create genetically controlled environments to eradicate
disease and defect without instituting a eugenics program at home, and to escape
mutually assured destruction. Undoubtably, other reasons could be put forward;
however, let us focus (for the moment) on the exploitation of natural resources
available on moons, asteroids, and other planets.
The sort of space program our country needs is not one that just blasts shuttles off
into Earth orbit every two weeks, but one which has as its main goal placing people
in space for long term habitation of orbiting stations, moon bases, and Mars
colonies. We must do these things because our technology is based on the
consumption of natural resources for its sustenance. The Earth does not hold an
unlimited supply of resources, thus eventually all Earth's available resources will be
consumed. To continue our technological growth and development we must
venture to nearby moons, asteroids, and planets to harvest these requisite resources.
Should such a space program be a public or private venture? If the fate of our
standard of life is at stake, should not the public financially support this program?
One of the arguments that Columbus made to the queen of Spain to encourage her
to support his voyage west was that he would open up new trade routes to India and
China. He made an economic argument. Financing exploration yields economic
profit for nations. Large undertakings (such as exploration) have often been
supported by the public. Once an economic benefit has been established then private
businesses get involved in the exploitation of fruits of exploration. Considering the
present cost of space exploration, it is doubtful that an appeal to economic
advantages alone will launch us into a new space age. What would be a convincing
argument? To avoid the possible extinction of the human race perhaps?
Is the universe ripe for the picking? The word "exploitation" makes us cringe; it
conjures of images of oppressors taking advantage of the weak. We Americans do
not want to be associated with any form of exploitation. This attitude denies the
obvious fact that we owe our quality of life (which is technologically based) to the
exploitation of the Earth's natural resources (not to mention foreign labor).
Whether we like such exploitation or not, who is willing to give up their cars or
electricity? Both of these technological luxuries are afforded at the cost of
exhausting an irreplaceable supply of fossil fuel.
The most pressing problem of exploiting Earth's resources is pollution.
Technology's polluting by-products could be serious enough to render the Earth
uninhabitable. If for no other reason, we must shift our exploitation of resources
from the Earth to the Moon, to near-Earth asteroids and even to other planets to
avoid the destruction of our own world.
Our current technological program demands exploitation of Earth's limited natural
resources which eventually will lead to the migration of humankind to space to
look for additional raw materials. An alternative to leaving Earth in search of off-
world resources is to shift the present technological paradigm, to a make use of
renewable resources and non polluting energy sources. However, a complete shift
to renewable resources is not possible overnight; such a shift will require many
years. A combination of shifting to more environmentally benign technologies and
exploiting off-world resources will be necessary to carry us through the next century.
The consumption of raw materials for the production of technological comforts
built our modern society. Our standard of living entails the depletion of the Earth's
natural resources. Consumerism, the destructive consumption of available
resources (the "use it then junk it" mind set), dominates the present paradigm of
material life. Might it not be possible to mend this attitude? The realization that
the Earth has limited resources (we will most assuredly run out of fossil fuel
someday) has encouraged some people to investigate the possibility of a shift to
renewable resources and alternate energy sources. The most emotive reason for this
shift is that renewable resources are, in general, clean. The by-products of
consuming fossil fuel are causing global changes in the climate and degrading the
quality of the atmosphere. The threat to our ecological system is real; to avoid its
irreparable damage we must forgo consumerism.
The largest problem with switching to renewable resources is that the technology
remains in its infancy. Shifting suddenly to this type of technology is not feasible
because it is inefficient and costly. A natural, deliberate introduction of technology
that relies on renewable resources must be encouraged to preserve Earth's
environment. Basic research supplemented with intensive development must be
encouraged. The dominant image of science being the tamer and conqueror of
nature must change. Nature might be able to be rationally ordered on the small
scale, but our science is far from being sophisticated enough to successfully order the
global environment. Until we have the knowledge to successfully micromanage
our biosphere, we must work with the Earth rather than casually raping her for her
resources without a thought for the future of humankind. The diminishing of the
ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are the early warning signs that the Earth is
experiencing the weight of the human technological presence. Our race will be the
loser if we tip the balance of nature.
Ultimately, it may be impossible to shift to an ecologically benign technology
because of the rapid growth of the Earth's human population. Consumption of
unrenewable resources may be unavoidable since cultivation of renewable resources
might prove impossible for the ten billion people expected to inhabit the Earth by
the middle of next century. The servicing of such a large population will place
considerable demands on our technological growth. We will be forced to come up
with ways of housing and feeding people, rather than put a substantial amount of
money into developing ways to improve our quality of life. If this is the case, we
would be better off to make an investment now in providing for the raw materials
needed to sustain ten billion people by gaining a foot hold in space.
The best reason to step out into space is the third on Olaf Stapleton's list: to make
the "most" or "best" of humans. Our innate rational faculties have endowed us
with an insatiable curiosity for the world in which we live. This rationality has
given us also the power to see that dominance is not always the safe means to
ensure one's survival.
Even if we did instigate an active program to develop the resources of near-Earth
space, this does not alleviate our responsibility to develop renewable resource
technologies to reduce the negative effects of consumerism on the delicate ecological
balance of Earth, our island home. The universe holds vast resources; however, the
Earth's resources are limited. To sustain human life at its present pace of
development requires a permanent human presence in space to obtain the resources
we require for modern technological life.
__________
Political Futures: Government by Pledge
by Ed Blakely
The near convergence of National Public Radio's pledge week and income tax
season got me thinking about a way we could change the way government is run.
Where I live the local public radio station sets aside two weeks the year to bug its
listeners for money. The staff at the station will beg and plead for the listeners to
call in and pledge their support--a euphemism for money. Well, since I'm an NPR
news junky, the threat, that if I didn't pledge my support, then my local station
wouldn't be able to carry Morning Edition or All Things Considered anymore, got
my attention. I dialed up and told them to expect a sizable chunk of my student
loan check. They thanked me and sent me a Morning Edition T-Shirt. Something
else arrived in the mail from my public radio station: a listener survey. I was asked
(as a pledging member of the station) to make my programming selections. This is
what gave me my idea.
On my desk was my income tax form (which I hadn't filled out yet; I am a terrible
procrastinator). I looked at the public radio survey and then back at my 1040 EZ.
What if, I thought, I could tell the federal government what programs were my
favorite. And what if the government was somehow obliged to use my tax money
to pay for the programs I marked off on my list. Let's say that I don't like MediCare
and wanted my "pledge" to the government to be spent on scholarships for
students, then I could check off Federal Student Aid and leave MediCare blank.
This would solve a yearly problem, deciding the federal budget. It doesn't seem that
anyone wants to take responsibility for balancing the budget, because balancing the
darn thing means cutting entitlements. But if the government said the taxpayer,
"Here, you decide what will be done with all the tax money." Then when the tax
returns arrived the Congress or the President could say to the special interest groups,
"Hey, don't blame us for the decrease support of (insert name of federal entitlement
program here), it was the tax payer who didn't pledge." The budget would have to
be balanced because only money sent to them could be allocated to the chosen
programs. Any short falls in the income for any particular program would simply
mean a downsizing of that program.
Send in your comments about how you would change the government to make it
better or your views of how government will have to change to address the issues of
the future. Just put "Political Futures" in the subject line of your message and
Trevor will forward it on to me. See you next month!
__________
Have you noticed...?
[We have selected some journal articles for those of you interested in
interpretations of quantum theory. --TA]
-----Foundations of physics-----
JAN 01 1995 v 25 n 1
Eberhard, Philippe H.; Rosselet, Philippe. "Bell's Theorem Based on a Generalized
EPR Criterion of Reality." p. 91
Redhead, Michael. "More Ado about Nothing." p. 123
Paty, Michel. "The Nature of Einstein's Objections to the Copenhagen Interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics." p. 183
MAR 01 1995 v 25 n 3
Chiatti, Leonardo. "Path Integral and Transactional Interpretation." p. 481
APR 01 1995 v 25 n 4
Omnes, Roland. "A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and its
Consequences." p. 605
-----Physical Review Letters-----
APR 03 1995 v 74 n 14
Popescu, Sandu. "Bell's Inequalities and Density Matrices: Revealing "Hidden"
Nonlocality." p. 2619
APR 24 1995 v 74 n 17
Hall, Michael J. W. "Information Exclusion Principle for Complementary
Observables." p. 3307
-----Physics Letters A-----
APR 10 1995 v 200 n 1
Santos, E. "Constraints for the violation of the Bell inequality in Einstein-Podolsky-
Rosen-Bohm experiments." p. 1
APR 24 1995 v 200 n 3 / 4
Khrennikov, A. "p-adic probability interpretation of Bell's inequality" p. 219
__________
NEXT ISSUE: The Future of Television
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to SubNWR@AOL.COM
requesting to be put on the mailing list. Also current and back issues of NWR are
available via FTP at FTP.ETEXT.ORG in the directory
/pub/Zines/NewWorldReader. NWR can be read on the World Wide Web at
http://goodrich.phys.lsu.edu/nwr/nwr_index.html.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays and
Scientific Currents should be 1000 words or less; book and journal reviews and
letters 500. Short stories up to 5000 words in length will be considered.
Donavan Hall, Publisher
Danford Hall, Senior Editor
Trevor Austin, Editor
Jack Lang, Managing Editor
Adam Fisher, Religion Editor
Ed Blakely, Politics Editor
David Branson, Copy Editor
Red Drake, Subscription Coordinator
Denise Hall, Editorial Assistant
copyright, 1995 FMI Publishing
magazines/NWR/nwr.1.7.txt
+504
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,504 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Magazine of Future, Fiction, and the Human Condition
June 1995
Vol. 1 * No. 7
This month's quote: "I hate television. I hate it as much as peanuts. But I
can't stop eating peanuts." -- Orson Welles
Contents-
From the Editor: The Open Connection and Open Democracy
Communications: More Reasons to Colonize Space--the debate continues
Feature Article: The Vast and Violent Wasteland by Jack Lang
Diagnostic Commentary: The Novel Experience by Thomas Newland
Books: Danford Hall reviews "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television"
___________
From the Editor: THE OPEN CONNECTION
In last month's editorial, I argued that globalism could never lead to a
desirable World Government. Such authority concentrated in a single body or
even a sprawling bureaucracy would not be conducive to the well-being or
happiness of individuals. The idea that World Government can be just a bigger
goverment, one that unites and governs nations, is not an innovative view of the
world of the future. So, if the world will not be governed by some body
analogous to a congress or even a three branch governing system, then what might
the global community be like in the 21st or 22nd century?
Democracy has proven itself to be the most humanitarian form of government,
albeit not perfectly so. The problem with democracies today is that they are
psuedo-democracies or republics in which representatives govern instead of the
body of citizens itself. A true democracy, where everyone participates in the
governing, may seem only possible in a small group. Perhaps, democracy today
only works at the community and organization level. When we get into
complicated relationships of thousands of people, true democracy becomes
intractable. A true democracy involving the total population of a nation seems
an impossibility.
A republican form of government, where a few are given the power to make
decisions for the many, is a pragmatic compromise of democracy. It is simply
not possible to consult everyone on every issue in order for some consensus to
be reached. We delegate authority to a handful of people and they spend their
time worrying about how to vote on issues which come up. The populace lives by
those decisions, at least until they elect new people to come in and over turn
what was done by a previous batch of lawmakers. But would it be possible to
somehow implement a true democracy with the assistance of today's advanced
telecommunications and information technology?
This is an interesting question to entertain in the abstract, but a more gritty
question begs asking: do people want to be bothered with the responsibility of a
true democracy? If a true democracy could be instituted, would people be
involved in it? Certainly not everyone would be involved all the time, but
enough people would probably participate that decisions could be made and the
country could run itself. More importantly could the entire world be governed in
such a way?
What I have been calling a true democracy, let us call Open Democracy. The
central idea of Open Democracy is that everyone may participate in the decision
making of the world on any level through the medium of the Open Connection. The
Open Connection is a network of computers much like the Internet hooked together
by the most advanced broadband telecommunications links. It connects everyone
in the world to everyone else. The Open Connection is much more; it is also an
information system complete with all the data that anyone would want or need to
know about any subject in the world. The information is classified, indexed,
and arranged for ease of use. If there is something you want to know, within
seconds the fact will be available. Most importantly the Open Connection is a
decision making engine. At the community, town, county, state, national, and
global levels people can be involved in all the governing decisions which affect
them. Voting and submission of ideas and suggestions can be done via the Open
Connection.
Though the details of Open Democracy need to be worked out, it would seem that
in the future such a method of self-government is possible. When we look to the
next century, perhaps it is misguided to look toward the United Nations or NATO
for the assurance of world peace. The realization of Open Democracy begins by
looking first at our communities and tending to their well-being. Those
communities are not necessarily our neighborhoods anymore. In the Open
Connection communities transcend time and space.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR
__________
Communications
GOOD INTENTIONS BUT ALL THE WRONG REASONS
A response to Randal Duff's article "The Final Frontier" in NWR 1.6
by Aston Goodenough
A senior scientist at the American Biotechnic Institute
Mr. Duff's article which appeared in the May issue of NWR addressed an important
topic--the pragmatic reasons why we should invest in a full program of space
colonization. He quite correctly pointed out that it is not the scientists, by
in large, who need convincing, but it is the public we must convince if such
ambitious and expensive programs are going to be brought about. We can fully
expect the public to ask the question: "What are we going to get for our
investment?" Several arguments have been used to answer this question when
justifying big science projects, one of which is the "spinoff" argument. Duff
employs an interesting approach when trying to convince the public that it needs
an active space program with a clear goal of colonization--he uses scare
tactics. He implies that the world will come to an end as we know it unless we
do something quick to ensure the availability of resources and to avoid the
devastation associated with overpopulation. Nice try, Duff, but your argument
won't stand up to the facts.
On the question of the availability of resources, Duff states that "our
technology is based on the consumption of natural resources for its sustenance.
The Earth does not hold an unlimited supply of resources, thus eventually all
Earth's available resources will be consumed." I must strongly take issue with
this statement. Had Duff taken the trouble to look up some facts before making
sweeping generalizations such as this, he would have realized that this argument
is not very convincing. If the threat of the depletion of all of Earth's
available resources is to spur us into a new era of space exploration and
conservation, then we should ask the obvious question: "When will those
resources be depleted? How much time do we have?" If the clock is ticking, we
should read the dial and see what its telling us! I did a quick little search
for some numbers to see if Duff's concern about resource depletion was
warranted; this is what I found. Aside from a few notable exceptions (which I
will discuss) we do not need to worry about running out of nonrenewable
resources for another four million years at the present rate of consumption.
Supplies of carbon, silicon, calcium, and nickel will be seriously depleted two
hundred thousand generations hence. I could rattle off a long list of other
elements important to our present technology, but I assure you that at present
rates of consumption these other elements will be with us on the order of
another billion years.
Now, let's look at some resources that will be gone much sooner. I assume that
Duff had in the back of his mind that the Earth's oil reserves would be depleted
very soon, and perhaps it is this that he was thinking about when he made his
sweeping statement. But even oil is not something that our children need to
concern themselves about. At the present rate of consumption the world's oil
reserves with be depleted in approximately 2,500 years. Does Duff expect us to
rush out immediately and start building space stations because we might run out
of oil in two and a half millenia? Perhaps Duff was concerned with our supply
of phosphorous, which is important as an agricultural fertilizer; it will be
gone in approximately 1,300 years. One would think that by then we might have
some obvious alternatives to the shortages which we will encounter?
Duff makes another slip; he discounts the "economic" argument of space
colonization as he balks at the all too incredible price tag. What possible
gains could we make that would offset the gigantic investment which space
colonization represents? Duff comes so close here to the answer, but he can't
seem to swallow it and opts for another scare tactic. He asks if a good enough
reason to venture into space would be "to avoid the possible extinction of the
human race?" I must assume that Duff is anticipating his fears about
overpoplation which he addresses at the end of his article. I will say a few
things about our extinction and the problem of overpopulation.
The two problems are unrelated. The extinction of the human race is inevitable
even if we managed to postpone it until the heat death of the universe. I will
be proud of our species if it does endure that long. The best way to avoid
extinction is not to build weapons of mass destruction. Our consumption of
resources will never lead to our extinction. Duff misses the obvious probable
cause of the end of the world and substitutes his pet crusade for it. Next,
Duff's fears about overpopulation are unfounded. It has been shown in more
places than one that these neo-malthusian arguments just don't hold up to a
thoughtful analysis of the causes of overpopulation. Briefly, let me state what
the cause is. Currently, there is a disparity between human instinct and
technology. Medical science has progressed so far that we now live in a
healthier world where the average life expectancy is increasing. In
underdeveloped nations, the ones with the population problems, they have simply
not learned yet that they do not need to over-produce children to replace the
existing generation. The problem of infant mortality and death from disease is
on the decline. Once, perhaps in a few generations, these nations have realized
that it is not in their best interest to over-produce children, they will stop
doing so. Even if it is well into the next century before we see a turn around,
we need not worry about feeding a population of 10 billion. Given the world's
supply of arable land and present day farming techniques, this planet could
easily support 50 billion people. Yet again, Duff's alarmism is unconvincing.
Lest I be accused of tearing apart another's argument without contributing to
the debate, I will suggest an argument that would have been convincing. Duff
did not mention one particularly important resource that will actually be scarce
by the middle of the next century. If the Earth is to support 10 billion people
and ensure them some standard of quality of life, we need to supply the world
with electrical power. How can we supply power to the world of the next
century? If you are thinking fission or fusion, then think again. It has been
shown by scientists such as the late Gerard O'Neill, that we simply cannot build
enough fission power planet and if we could, we simply wouldn't want to because
of the potential health hazard. There are arguments against relying on fusion
that I won't go into here, but the most convincing one is that the technology is
still not developed enough to build our future hopes on it. The answer to the
up-and-coming power problem is solar power satellites. These satellites would
orbit the Earth, convert solar energy into microwaves and beam it down to
rectennas where it could be converted into electricity and distributed. The
construction of the satellites will require the presence of space colonies to
house the people who will build them in Earth orbit from resources collected
from the moon. It would be impossible to run such an enterprise from the
Earth's surface. The launch costs would be prohibitive. I don't have enough
room to go into all the details but if anyone is curious about this topic I
would direct them to an article by Gerard O'Neill in Physics Today in the
September 1974 issue. There is also a very nice book by T. A. Heppenheimer
entitled "Colonies in Space" which gives a relatively non-technical overview of
the solar power satellite project.
I agree with Duff that we should get our space colonization program going, but I
agree with him for a completely different set of reasons than he proposes.
Randal Duff Responds--
I am glad that Mr. Goodenough agrees with me on my aims at least. In response
to his complaint that I employ scare tactics to convince my readers that my
arguments should be attended to, I must decline to comisserate. My position,
simply put, is that we should look into alternatives to our present course. I
believe that a thoughtful review of my aritcle in last month's NWR will show
that I was more interested in demonstrating that a consequence of our present
technological growth will result in negatives effects. As to the ambiguity of
the time scale which governs the advent of these negative effects, I make no
apology because regardless of whether we deplete our resources or pollute the
biosphere, we will need to move in a new direction by the middle of next
century. We might have plenty of oil in fifty years, but will we have clean air
to breathe? Will we have an ozone layer to protect us from the sun's harmful
rays? Will global warming melt the polar ice caps enough to cause catestrophic
flooding? These are questions which cannot be ignored.
As for Goodenough's implication that the global population problem will take
care of itself, I answer that this is not so. He is forgetting that even before
the advent of modern medicine the population growth in nineteenth century Russia
was incredible and completely due to overproduction of humans. We cannot simply
ignore population growth and trust that it will straighten itself out.
Something must be done and done quickly. Some estimates show that even if we
implement birth reduction techniques now, the worldwide population will not
level off until the middle of the twenty-second century at somewhere around 15
billion souls. This is some serious population inertia that we have built up,
and if we don't start applying the brakes, we will suffer.
Also, there is an inaccuracy in Goodenough's conclusion that Earth can support
50 billion people by employing all of the available arable land and modern
farming techniques. The fact is that we are only using about 25% of our arable
land and even with modern farming techniques we cannot prevent crop failure,
drought, and disease. I estimate that we will be pushing our ability to feed
the world if the population reaches 15 billion. As the world gets more crowded,
we can only lose more of our arable land mass. People will not live in deserts.
The available energy question is a good one. Goodenough only mentions one
possibility. He contends that a good economic argument can be made for building
solar power satellites, but there is a technological limitation to how cheap
such energy can be. When we factor in economics, we find that people want to
pay the lowest price possible for something. Beaming energy from the Sun in the
form of microwaves to the Earth is a charming idea, but people won't pay for it.
If we are going to convince people to invest in space, then such an "economic"
argument is a weak one. People must be enlightened to the greater good before
they can make such sacrifices. I am convinced that my article demonstrated that
pure self-interested pragmatism can have devastating effects on generations to
come.
*****One more thought on "The Final Frontier"*****
In response to the statement-- "The Earth does not hold an unlimited supply of
resources, thus eventually all Earth's available resources will be consumed."
NWR Reader, Chris in Dallas, writes:
For 3 BILLION years life existed on this planet with "limited" resources. Now,
man in a hundred, is arrogant enough to look at other planets for resources
instead of pausing to reflect on the devastating and avoidable destruction of
the only really worthwhile thing in the whole universe.
__________
Feature Article: The Vast and Violent Wasteland
By Jack Lang
If you have watched television recently, you are more likely to engage in an act
of violence. Last night, I watched a report on the effects of watching
television on the PBS news show Frontline. The report made a very good case
that the violence depicted on television does encourage aggressive behavior in
young children who watch many hours a day. The Frontline producers installed
(with permission) video cameras in several homes in order to observe the viewing
habits of typical families and individuals. What I saw was startling.
Certainly, the shows which these people watched were violent, but I was more
shocked by their use of the television than by the shows they actually watched.
In most homes, the television is on whenever someone is in the house whether
they are paying attention to it or not. The Frontline reporter aptly described
the television as a fireplace in a winter cabin: it was always on. Not having
anything else to do with their lives, people search in vain for some diversion
on the television; all they find is a vast and violent wasteland. What has this
technology done to the lifestyle of the typical American? Simply put--these
people are waiting to die.
I am no enemy of television. My personal viewing consists of four weekly, hour
long dramas. So I will not make an impassioned appeal for the elimination of
television. Rather, I wish to present a few rules for the proper use of
television.
If television is violent and leads to a lifestyle degradation when abused (by
viewing too much and too casually), then why isn't the answer to this problem
the quick and speedy elimination of television. Aside from the practical
impossibility of this suggestion (namely, the television industry generates
copious amounts of revenue) television can be used in a healthy, productive, and
regenerative way. The key to understanding the positive side of television is
noting the difference between active and passive forms of entertainment.
Any pastime which is experienced passively is dangerous. Television is not
necessarily passive entertainment; the Frontline documentary showed, however,
that it is not uncommon that television viewing is done passively. To
experience anything in a passive way is to leave the higher reasoning faculties
of the brain idle while the senses and emotions are stimulated. The most basic
reason why passive entertainment is bad in large quantities is that if the
brain's higher reasoning faculties are not used they will atrophy. The most
alarming reason (which was the main concern of the Frontline documentary) is
that when acts of violence are experienced passively as entertainment, the
violence looses its horror and reality. To employ a buzzword, people become
desensitized to violence. When they see injustice, they are not outraged, they
are merely entertained. The emotional and physical pain of death is
trivialized.
With a little work, it is possible to get the higher reasoning faculties of the
brain going even while watching television. This takes some concentration at
first, but once you get the hang of it, it should come as second nature. The
active viewer demands more from television than sensory and emotional
stimulation; they want meaning. Not every show is designed to be viewed
actively. This means that the viewer who desires to actively engage their
entertainment must choose shows carefully. The vast amount of trash television
which is broadcast is depressing, but I have found a large number of shows which
can be engaged actively. When viewing actively, a person asks questions of the
show and the characters which the show presents. What are the motivations for
the actions of this character? What truth does this demonstrate about human
nature? How could have this situation been played out differently to avoid the
necessary conflict of the drama? Or should this conflict be avoided? Are
higher principles at work? The active approach to television could be called
the literary approach inasmuch as it resembles and approaches the level of
activity a reader must put into a book.
One thing that television will never teach us is how to use our imaginations. A
criticism of television is that it shows us the images, and we do not need to
manufacture them in our heads. Again, the less we use our imagination, our
ability to form sharp, clear mental images of things diminishes. Perhaps our
ability to image is connected with our use of language and thus to our humanity.
To engage the mind in a television show is to participate actively with the
artists who created the show. Active participation requires concentration. I
have found that it is best not to eat while watching television (for one reason
my wife says this leads to obesity). Ideally, one should not be interrupted by
commercials. Advertisements are the enemy of an active viewer; they are
distracting nonsense. I have instituted the practice of never watching a
television show when it is broadcast, even if I am at home. I record the show
on my VCR, then watch it at my leisure. In this way I am able to fast forward
through all the commercials with a maximum of fifteen seconds delay in the
action of the show. This provides a semblance of continutity in the action.
Since most hour long shows on commercial television are a maximum of forty-eight
minutes in length, recording the show saves me at least twelve minutes which
would have been wasted otherwise.
I began this article by pointing out that television on the whole is the medium
of violence. The television brings violent acts into our homes in a safe and
controlled manner. This is not an evil in and of itself. The evil of
television violence only surfaces when it is combined with passive viewing
habits. An active viewer will never become desensitized to the violence,
because the active viewer remains humane while watching and is capable of
judging what is terrible and horrible about what he sees. The passive viewer
simply sees dispassionately and without empathy for the suffering and pain which
attends violence. Passivity leads to the degradation of humanity. To be a
passive viewer is to become willfully sub-human.
The solution to the problem of television violence is not letter campaigns or
censorship, but the education of viewers in the art of active viewing.
__________
Diagnostic Commentary: The Novel Experience
by Thomas Newland
The novelist writes from experience. The font in which the writer dips his pen
is the wealth of personal experience. Many years ago when I was working on a
degree in philosophy, I had the opportunity to spend some time in Greece. My
plan was to travel the rural part of Greece and end my trip in Athens. Not
wanting ever to forget this experience, I recorded my journey in a composition
notebook. Each night I would describe in fantastic detail what I saw, smelled,
felt, and thought. I traveled alone and had much time to myself and my
thoughts. The sharp landscape and ancient surroundings awakened in me a dormant
imagination. I tried to imagine the ruins, remnants of an ancient civilization,
as being alive and populated. When I walked the streets of ancient Delphi, I
could see, smell, and hear the presence of the people. My newfound poetic
imagination allowed me to understand the gods. I came to a promontory above the
city: below me was Delphi and further down gleamed the ruins of a temple, and
still further below that a deep blue green valley stretched miles to the sea.
Thrusting up on my left were two grey mountains separated by an immense cleft.
Above it, the eagles circled. Instantly, I knew why the Greeks had proclaimed
that Delphi was the center of the world. Being there, it made perfect sense to
me.
In a few days I returned to Athens and began a two week, whirlwind tour of
Europe. I couldn't get Delphi out of my mind. The experience grew. Meaning
layered upon meaning. I felt compelled to try to capture what I had experienced
in Delphi. It took me another year or so, but I turned my journal of my trip
through Greece into a piece of fiction. I suppose this fictionalized account of
my journey could be called my first unpublished novel. The events of my novel
hardly bear any real resemblance to my actual experiences in Greece, which were
pretty boring in themselves (consisting mostly of walking around and staring a
toppled down buildings). But the experience of Greece is what brought this
spontaneous creative effort out of me.
In the meetings of the Diagnostic Society this summer, I have been reading my
Greece novel to the group. In the discussions, I have discovered more about my
trip than I ever before realized. My Greece novel is certainly a work of
fiction, perhaps even an attempt at wish fulfillment, an account of the trip I
wish I had had. But that is what fiction and the novel is all about: reshaping
of existence and the bringing into being of novel experiences.
__________
Books
Review of _Four_Arguments_For_the_Elimination_of_Television_
by Danford A. Hall
This book, "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television," which was written
by Jerry Mander and published in 1977, is even more persuasive, after an
additional 20 years of television, than the arguments were at first publication.
Jerry Mander (almost certainly a pun-intended pseudonym) was a very successful
executive in the area of national television advertising; therefore, he had a
special vantage point from which to view the effects of television. His
conclusion, strongly argued in the book, is that the effects of television are
so pernicious that this medium should be eliminated. You need to understand that
Jerry Mander is not arguing for some kind of government control or industry-wide
self-regulation: He is making an absolutist argument for the elimination of
television. If Jerry Mander believed that the situation was that bad in 1977,
before MTV, the sewage of cable television, etc., then one can imagine the
increased importance of these four arguments.
In these dwindling days of the second millennium, we have seen "patriots" bomb
the federal building in Oklahoma City, because they believed that the US
government is on a path to total autocracy and one-world government. To most
thinking people such paranoid ideas are foolish. I believe that Jerry Mander
would side against the patriots also; he does argue, however, that television
sets up "Eight Ideal Conditions for the Flowering of Autocracy." Mander's four
main arguments are solid and rhetorically sound; nevertheless, as the reviewer,
I want briefly to present four of the "eight ideal conditions," and as you read
them, judge for yourselves: are they more fulfilled in our society today than
they were when Jerry Mander first published them?
1. "Eliminate personal knowledge." Television filters experience and gives us
the sense that we have experienced many things that we haven't. If you take a
group of elementary school children to the zoo, many of them will express
boredom. They have already seen all these dumb old animals on TV. On an adult
level, how many of us now yawn and turn away as a TV program on violence and our
society, shows us for the millionth time the video of a deranged person shooting
at Ronald Reagan. We respond like we have been there and seen it all first hand,
but we haven't.
2. "Eliminate points of comparison." Observe how television chooses to represent
regular, everyday Americans. The sitcoms (not counting the ones designed to get
laughs by showing the "humor" of people living in abject poverty) and other
programs show a very affluent society, where everyone lives in mansions and has
several BMWs. Think of the child in the ghetto watching this display. The child
has no basis for comparison, so she believes that most other Americans have
fulfilled the American Dream of Materialism, and somehow her family was passed
by or unfairly excluded.
3. "Separate people from each other." Television does this task effectively.
First, people don't have to go out to be entertained when they can sit right at
home and watch the box. But worse than that, secondly, as the family watches TV
they are not interacting. They are each having a separate experience, cut off
from developing social skills and a sense of community that must be in the home
before we can have it again on the streets of our neighborhoods.
4. "Centralize knowledge and information." Television does this dirty deed
better than most of us realize. Do you see any real differences between the
stories and their slant on any of the major networks that deliver news to us? We
don't hear about many instances of corporate abuse of people, resources, or the
environment. Why? Because we don't want to offend the sponsors. Occasionally,
when a corporate blunder like the Exxon Valdez or exploding Pinto cars occurs,
the media can't turn its back. We don't hear about the mistakes and self-serving
decisions of many politicians, because the news reporters don't want to loose
access by reporting damaging information. Another example of this centralizing
of knowledge is who owns and controls the networks. Rupert Murdock, billionaire
publisher and media magnate, is interested in buying CNN. He already controls
information spigots world-wide, and if CNN was added to his conglomerate, most
of the world would only see, read, or hear the news that Rupert Murdock and his
executives want us to receive.
The real problem with Jerry Mander's book is that it would be as impossible now
to eliminate television from our lives as it would be to eliminate automobiles.
It simply won't happen; however, once you read this book, you will never see
television the way you did before you were exposed to Jerry Mander's "Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television" .
__________
NEXT ISSUE: SHAPING THE NOOSPHERE--Expanding Frontiers on the Internet
NWR Information
Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to SubNWR@AOL.COM
requesting to be put on the mailing list. Also current and back issues of NWR
are available via FTP at FTP.ETEXT.ORG in the directory
/pub/Zines/NewWorldReader. NWR can be read on the World Wide Web at
http://goodrich.phys.lsu.edu/nwr/nwr_index.html.
Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays and
Scientific Currents should be 1000 words or less; book and journal reviews and
letters 500. Short stories up to 5000 words in length will be considered.
Donavan Hall, Publisher
Danford Hall, Senior Editor
Trevor Austin, Editor
Jack Lang, Managing Editor
Adam Fisher, Religion Editor
Ed Blakely, Politics Editor
David Branson, Copy Editor
Red Drake, Subscription Coordinator
Denise Hall, Editorial Assistant
Desmond Astor, Special Corespondent
copyright, 1995 FMI Publishing
magazines/NWR/nwr.readme.txt
+59
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
The New World Reader
An Electronic Idealetter
Statement of Purpose-
NWR is an electronic publication for those people who think about the
issues and ideas of science, philosophy, history, and religion. The
special focus of NWR is the future of science and society. Our feature
articles will deal with issues pertaining to how science and technology is
shaping any aspect of human life. Moral and ethical problems associated
with the advance of the human understanding of nature are of particular
interest. NWR constantly asks the question: "Where is the human race
going?" Our outlook is positive; we have an abiding hope that the next
century will be best that humankind has ever seen.
Submission Guidelines-
If you have a feature article or an idea for one please contact us at
NEWORLDR@aol.com. We ask that submissions be kept to around 1000 words.
If the subject requires more space, then something can be worked out. We
would like to keep the issues of NWR short enough to be read conveniently
in about ten minutes. We also ask that feature authors send a brief (25
word) biographical description of themselves.
Those of you sending comments, letters, science news items, book reviews,
etc. please observe a 500 word limit. "Science Currents" should be items
of general scientific interest and hopefully have some social significance
as well. "Book Reviews" are just that, your opinion about a book you have
read. We are looking for reviews of popular science books in particular.
The NWR editorial staff reserves the right to edit any submission. We vow
not to change the meaning or intent of any submission. We my also reject
any submission without notification to the author.
NWR retains the copyright on each whole issue and any contributions by its
staff. Submissions from other authors are not subject to our copyright and
remain the intellectual property of their author. You may use your
submissions as you will in the future.
Subscription Information-
NWR is currently (Jan. 95) published monthly, but bi-weekly publication is
our goal by 1996. Each issue is distributed freely via e-mail. Free
subscriptions can be had by writing our subscription department at
NEWORLDR@aol.com. Current and back issues of NWR are available via
anonymous ftp at ftp.etext.org.
One Last Thing-
The Internet is a fabulous opportunity to open up the world of publishing
to the penniless and destitute. But just because something is free does
not mean that correspondingly its quality is low. We at NWR believe that
the best way to ensure quality in the free electronic press is by
establishing recognized seals of approval. We will work hard to see that
NWR becomes one such seal by Internet readers. We hope you will be proud
to include in your vita anything which is accepted by NWR for publication.
Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR