Letters to the Editor
Tobbar
Published Letters: 154 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Conflicting goals, conflicting orders
[Read the article: Back to the future]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ah, sci-fi. Love it. Love. It. Nice article, nice letters.
My take? The future is mighty hard to predict. Fear of the future is a little easier to capitlize upon.
And I don't think you can emphasis 'capital' enough. Many others said it, I second it: There were huge inovations in transportation from 1800 on. There are still huge innovations in transportation being made now- but it's kind of a diminishing return. There is no huge pressure (yet) to take any big steps/risks. The end of oil will probably be enough, but you never know if it might be some tiny little change- the ceramic engine or something.
There is a lot of talk about computers and cell phones and such. A lot of their success has been due to the humble microchip. HOnestly, do you think we'd still be using the 'net if we had to go to a central computer hub the size of a library? Probably not so much...
History also has weird cycles- in the 40s and 50s DuPont promised us better living through chemistry- and they delivered! But the better living wasn't always that much better, and the by-products were truly frightening. DuPont, of course, fought against a lot of early environmental laws because it would effect their bottom line- but they've gradually come around to handling/producing/researching their products and business in a more environmentally sound manner.
I see the same thing going on with energy/automobiles. They led the pack for bringing us the future back in the day, they've been fighting for the last 20 years to stop the future from happening (the battle over global warming is a good example), and most likely once the writing is on the law and/or they see a viable market (probably hinging on some minor invention or innovation) they'll be the first to try to lead the pack again in the new direction.
Money is a huge factor, not only in what technologies get legitimate research, but in determining which ones will eventually take off.
And, of course, sf publishers are out to make money, too, so while there may have been great sf that predicted/is predicting trends and technologies, it may not have gotten much play due to market forces.
All that siad, we are living in a whirl of futurism. The technologies we have are the stuff of dreams, and the problems we are facing come straight out of the worst hellish dystiopias.
They are interesting times.
-
So, this is the backlash, eh?
[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Boy, the letters section is sure full of ruffled believer feathers. Ruffled. Scared. Behind the times. Impotent.
You guys are so weak, and your arguments- laughable! Ha! I say again: ha!
No God. No Devil. No souls. No afterlives. The calls are coming from inside the skull. Is that really such a bitter pill to swallow? I mean, you swallowed all that horseshit about, well, gods and devils and souls and afterlives. Magic men and holy rams and whatnot.
The believers are losing, in many ways they've been losing for a long time. Each new discover, each new branch of study- all of them point out that the fairy tales of religion is just that- a tale. Like the Silmarilion or something. Or John Carter of Mars.
Only nobody in their right minds tries to win elections by "thoatimizing" their opponents. When was the last time you took anybody seriously who claimed that Illuvatar was talking to him?
When religion is finally gone the world will be a much better place.
And I guess that's what really bothers the believers- not only are they on the losing side, they are on the bad side.
-
Still no gods.
[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The backlash, limp as it is, continues.
We're chemicals, all the way down. No magic, no gods, no demons. Plenty of stuff we can't expain, sure. No surprise there. Theists holding up the ever-shrinking body of non-expalinable stuff up as proof of their rabbit-ass-crazy beliefs, sure. No surprise there either.
Unlike some whiners in the lettters section, I appluad Salon's decision to continue to publish science/faith articles. I encourage them to keep 'em coming.
I would also like to remind the martyrs that they've had their time on Salon's pages as well. There was the article about research into afterlives, for example. Or those two book reviews of those sad, sad, people who thristed for meaning and modern Christianity couldn't fit the bill.
A few other random comments. Where do people keep coming up with Richard Dawkins being vitriolic or mean? Have you watched any of his talks? The man has the patience of a saint. A saint, I say! He also has little tolerance for tomfoolery. And he doesn't pull punches with the idea that the universe does not owe you comfort or security.
Hard facts, but you need to hear them.