Important caution in your article. But what is there that we can predict that is less than grim in current global circumstances? Perhaps a next piece from you will point to that?
It's been, oh, 50 some years since I took an undergrad philosophy class, so I can't recall whether there was a specific philosopher/logician who first observed that there is no logical imperative that because something has happened a particular way in the past it that it must happen again that way in the future. In other words, when it comes to human behaviour, there are no certainties, only probabilities. Evidence (and understanding of that evidence) can assist in identifying probabilities, but cannot predict absolutely.
Which of course is what you have been saying in your writings, Dan - demonstrating that repeatedly by pointing to the historical record, which amply illustrates the point.
Even so, the way things seem to be trending, I do worry about what the world will be like for my grandkids and their progeny.
As an aside, Gwynne Dyer also has a lot of interesting things to say about where we are now, and where, "if trends continue", we might end up. But it seems to me that he tends to have a more insightful understanding of the evidence, than Brooks and those of his ilk.
There's nothing at all wrong with surveying present realities and asking what will happen if trends continue -- provided you explicitly say that is all you are doing, that extending the trend is not a reliable guide to the future, and must never close our eyes to the vast array of possible futures that always lies ahead. Of course, if you did that, you would not delivery the (false) certainty that people psychologically crave and never become a famous pundit. Which is why famous pundits never, ever do that.
"Future worlds" are essentially prescriptive not descriptive. The whole post-cold war "Washington Consensus" died ages ago and we are all waking up to what that means. Variable geometries take shape over global networks, to paraphrase a former British Prime Minister John Major. If you are mourning that the future isn't what it used to be, its probably wise to consider that the vision of previous futurists provided an inadequate road map based on extremely short term objectives. Yes it failed, well, nothing lasts forever.
Great article. I declined to read Brooks this weekend. A few years ago I heard him at Rotman and declined to become an acolyte. Is Andrew Coyne the Canadian version? Nevermind. The wonderful use of the term Solon recalls our very own Solon Low a man of many incarnations and a poor version of what a Canadian should be.
Important caution in your article. But what is there that we can predict that is less than grim in current global circumstances? Perhaps a next piece from you will point to that?
It's been, oh, 50 some years since I took an undergrad philosophy class, so I can't recall whether there was a specific philosopher/logician who first observed that there is no logical imperative that because something has happened a particular way in the past it that it must happen again that way in the future. In other words, when it comes to human behaviour, there are no certainties, only probabilities. Evidence (and understanding of that evidence) can assist in identifying probabilities, but cannot predict absolutely.
Which of course is what you have been saying in your writings, Dan - demonstrating that repeatedly by pointing to the historical record, which amply illustrates the point.
Even so, the way things seem to be trending, I do worry about what the world will be like for my grandkids and their progeny.
As an aside, Gwynne Dyer also has a lot of interesting things to say about where we are now, and where, "if trends continue", we might end up. But it seems to me that he tends to have a more insightful understanding of the evidence, than Brooks and those of his ilk.
There's nothing at all wrong with surveying present realities and asking what will happen if trends continue -- provided you explicitly say that is all you are doing, that extending the trend is not a reliable guide to the future, and must never close our eyes to the vast array of possible futures that always lies ahead. Of course, if you did that, you would not delivery the (false) certainty that people psychologically crave and never become a famous pundit. Which is why famous pundits never, ever do that.
"Future worlds" are essentially prescriptive not descriptive. The whole post-cold war "Washington Consensus" died ages ago and we are all waking up to what that means. Variable geometries take shape over global networks, to paraphrase a former British Prime Minister John Major. If you are mourning that the future isn't what it used to be, its probably wise to consider that the vision of previous futurists provided an inadequate road map based on extremely short term objectives. Yes it failed, well, nothing lasts forever.
Great article. I declined to read Brooks this weekend. A few years ago I heard him at Rotman and declined to become an acolyte. Is Andrew Coyne the Canadian version? Nevermind. The wonderful use of the term Solon recalls our very own Solon Low a man of many incarnations and a poor version of what a Canadian should be.