Wednesday, October 30, 2002

Just a reminder of a link to remember: Freenet.  Proof that peer to peer technology has other uses than trading MP3s. P2P App's Aim: Defend Free Speech. The latest version of peer-to-peer file-sharing application Freenet is easier to use -- all part of its creators' goal to reach more people interested in using P2P to promote free speech. By Xeni Jardin. [Wired News] 12:46:47 AM     Anti-play and Jeremy Rifkin's The Biotech Century I just finished reading The Biotech Century by Jeremy Rifkin and want to examine one of his arguments in some depth - or at least note a few of my initial reactions. By and large I thought the book was evenhanded in its approach, describing most of the recent changes in bioinformatics, gene patenting and other areas in a calm way. Rifkin says that he merely wants to raise the issues for public discussion and I take him at his work. But near the end of the final chapter about the new cosmology that sees all of life as a form of information processing and thus controllable by humans he begins to make some arguments about postmodernism that I don't necessarily disagree with but I don't feel carry the rhetorical punch he wants to convey. It is the lack of rhetorical effectiveness that I want to consider. Why do these final arguments fail with me? Am I the exception? Genetic engineering - as an 'art form' - epitomizes the new postmodern way of thinking that has grabbed hold of the culture, effecting a broad change in the way we perceive our very being. The new postmodern world in art and architecture, film, television, popular music, and in the increasingly virtual worlds we delight in and travel through, is one of ever fewer boundaries; a place where past, present, and future twist and meld, where life is less serious and more playful and where the rules of engagement are forever changing. The new era is less constrained by fate and destiny and more open to a therapeutic frame of mind in which each person is free to creante and live out as many fantasies, experiences, and lifestyles as time permits. (The Biotech Century, Tarcher-Putnam, 224) my italics I emphasized the portion of the argument that I find most interesting. Is postmodernism really playful? Most of the academics who espouse it seem as serious as any other person. An even more important question is whether play is good or bad? For Rifkin there is a danger in play. We lose sight of the seriousness of the issues and we lose sight of the essential human nature that is at stake. I'm a partisan for a playful view of the world and I can't accept the equation that because something, even our deepest beliefs about the world, are held in a playful state of mind then our ideas must be called into question. To me the activity of the mind, whether exploring the genome or writing a computer program, is always and ideally a playful act. Creativity and playfulness are forever interlinked; you cannot have one without the other. And if being playful means we run the risk of altering ourselves and our environment genetically then so be it. I'd rather take my chances on the future than hold back. Rifkin sounds a voice of caution and he deserves to be heard. We should debate and argue over how we use genetic technology. But his argument against postmodernism and play doesn't convince me. 12:23:02 AM     Dueling Academics - or Distortions from Right and Left There are two recent debates in the academic community which suddenly coalesced in my mind tonight.  On the one side we have the reception of Arming America: the Origins of a National Gun Culture by Michael Bellesiles. In brief Bellesiles argued that our assumptions that most Americans owned guns before the Civil War is just that - an assumption - and, moreover, there may be some evidence in probate records and other pieces of cultural history that suggest guns were not that important in early America.  This idea immediately set the critics from the political right on Bellesiles trail and he hasn't been able to shake them since.  They've called everything into question: his methods, his research notes, and more.  So now he has resigned from his post at Emory University after a committee of scholars released a report criticizing him for shoddy work.  Here are some summaries of the issues, The Nation, the Emory Wheel on his resignation, and a search at Instapundit will show numerous entries chronicling the controversy. On the other side we have The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.  Lomborg's basic argument is that most of the current environmental data we have about global warming, loss of biodiversity, and other enviromental crises relies on assumptions - statistical and otherwise.  Of course this idea immediately led to much wailing and gnashing of teeth among environmentalists.  Scientific American even published a special article outlining all of the ways in which Lomborg was mistaken.  Which drew criticism from conservatives and created quite a controversy. I'm not trying to argue for or against Lomborg or Bellesiles. The incidents seem to parallel a common political tactic of arguing to extremes - you're either for us or you're against us. The conservatives who defend Lomborg pillory Bellesiles, and the liberals who defend Bellesiles want to give Lomborg a pie in the face. No one seems to score any points when academics tries to take on political issues. About some of these issues people seem to have a predetermined response and a reasoned argument against it never seems to get through. I haven't read either Bellesiles or Lomborg yet but I plan to purchase each book in the near future. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their arguments I will be supporting the courage to call political shibboleths into question - a courage we need from both sides.  Long may the debates continue.  12:03:27 AM

© Copyright 2002 Todd Suomela. Last update: 10/30/2002; 12:46:50 AM.