From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2008 - 08:19:21 EDT
In general, I think it is behaviourally preferable to underestimate the pace of technological change than overestimate it - you get more pleasant surprises than unpleasant surprises - but of course it is more preferable to estimate capitalist progress correctly. Clarke taught us that if we do not go boldly where none have gone before, it's because we fail to think the possibilities, our creativity is imprisoned in rather tight confines - but why? To enlarge the spectrum of possibilities requires imagination, i.e. the discovery of phenomena which exist not simply because they are really there, but because my own gnosis recognises those phenomena and helps to bring them into being, so that I realize my idea. Hi Jurriaan: Clarke and other science fiction writers certainly had imagination. Buy they - like most scientists who made futurist projections - didn't generally conceive of the issues associated with the pace of technological change by placing that subject within its proper institutional context. If the decisions about technological change are being made by capitalist firms and/or the state under capitalism then that makes a huge difference in practice regarding which technologies are adopted and what the diffusion period will be. In general, I think that scientists and science fiction writers see the possibilities for technological change but often don't see the institutional constrains and hence they tend(ed) (Clarke excepted) to over-estimate that pace. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2008 - 00:00:15 EDT