![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I promised a post on this book, so here goes:
Strangely, Bill McKibben's Enough, surprisingly, seems to fail in that it's overly optimistic about technological change. Cloning, germline genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and the like, he seems to think, would send us hurtling singularitywards too fast to adapt.
Post-technosauce, McKibben asserts, people will never know the joy of running a marathon. (Actually, people exist who aren't really challenged by marathons, and they don't seem to have any problem finding even cooler ways to test their limits.) After the singularity, perhaps we'll devote all our time to contemplating philosophy, and there will be no time for down-to-earth matters such as dinner or love. (Though he complains about the bitterness of the singularitian cool-aid, McKibben seems to have drank a bit too much.) Neo-Luddites might be uncomfortable in a more technological society, or worse, ridiculed by their peers. (Oh, boo hoo.)
McKibben also gives little indication that preventing technological development is even possible. Sure, the Amish are quite technologically savvy regarding what they adopt and reject, but they have the outside world as a safety valve, those dead-set on lifestyle-changing technology leave rather than fight entrenched community norms. His other examples are China's dismantling of Zheng He's fleet (which resulted in them getting carved up by those who didn't reject such technology) and Japan's three-century-long rejection of guns. None of those examples involve avoiding the development of new technologies. In trying to get back to the actual point, McKibben undercuts himself even more thoroughly, noting that nuclear deterrence has been mostly effective, DDT and CFCs have been banned, and certain sorts of GMO crops are being rejected (after the technological genies of nuclear power, engineered chemicals, and plant genetics have been thoroughly debottled).
McKibben's strongest argument, perhaps, is that powerful technologies tend to widen the gap between rich and poor. This still has a few weaknesses, though: Avoiding technological development does nothing to help the poor, and many technologies that widen that gap initially end up helping the poor later. Also, that effect is contingent on social structures, and after being so alarmed at the power of these technologies to change society, McKibben neglects to think that they might do so in a way that helps end that trend.
At any rate, staying where we are is not an option. The end of easy, non-renewable energy means the inevitable reduction of the scale of human enterprise. Anything easily predictable from the current mindframe of industrial society is in doubt. In some sense, it's singularity and/or collapse. So when McKibben suggests rejecting certain "high technology" because the former might be a little unpleasant, he seems to be missing the point. A little powerful technology in the right places can make all the difference.
In other words, when you see danger on the road ahead, it might be better to consult a map and adjust your course than to stop, turn around, decide you've had enough.
Strangely, Bill McKibben's Enough, surprisingly, seems to fail in that it's overly optimistic about technological change. Cloning, germline genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and the like, he seems to think, would send us hurtling singularitywards too fast to adapt.
Post-technosauce, McKibben asserts, people will never know the joy of running a marathon. (Actually, people exist who aren't really challenged by marathons, and they don't seem to have any problem finding even cooler ways to test their limits.) After the singularity, perhaps we'll devote all our time to contemplating philosophy, and there will be no time for down-to-earth matters such as dinner or love. (Though he complains about the bitterness of the singularitian cool-aid, McKibben seems to have drank a bit too much.) Neo-Luddites might be uncomfortable in a more technological society, or worse, ridiculed by their peers. (Oh, boo hoo.)
McKibben also gives little indication that preventing technological development is even possible. Sure, the Amish are quite technologically savvy regarding what they adopt and reject, but they have the outside world as a safety valve, those dead-set on lifestyle-changing technology leave rather than fight entrenched community norms. His other examples are China's dismantling of Zheng He's fleet (which resulted in them getting carved up by those who didn't reject such technology) and Japan's three-century-long rejection of guns. None of those examples involve avoiding the development of new technologies. In trying to get back to the actual point, McKibben undercuts himself even more thoroughly, noting that nuclear deterrence has been mostly effective, DDT and CFCs have been banned, and certain sorts of GMO crops are being rejected (after the technological genies of nuclear power, engineered chemicals, and plant genetics have been thoroughly debottled).
McKibben's strongest argument, perhaps, is that powerful technologies tend to widen the gap between rich and poor. This still has a few weaknesses, though: Avoiding technological development does nothing to help the poor, and many technologies that widen that gap initially end up helping the poor later. Also, that effect is contingent on social structures, and after being so alarmed at the power of these technologies to change society, McKibben neglects to think that they might do so in a way that helps end that trend.
At any rate, staying where we are is not an option. The end of easy, non-renewable energy means the inevitable reduction of the scale of human enterprise. Anything easily predictable from the current mindframe of industrial society is in doubt. In some sense, it's singularity and/or collapse. So when McKibben suggests rejecting certain "high technology" because the former might be a little unpleasant, he seems to be missing the point. A little powerful technology in the right places can make all the difference.
In other words, when you see danger on the road ahead, it might be better to consult a map and adjust your course than to stop, turn around, decide you've had enough.
