I think Eric said it well with this: Finally (for the moment): as I got to about the three-minute mark, the thought came into my head that "future shock" was real, but it's not what we imagined it would be: The shock is essentially a form of denial.
That's why I believe Toffler was right and I think we are denying it. Dave Ennocenti On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Eric Scoles <[email protected]> wrote: > > Several thoughts spring to mind: > > I think this might have been inspired in part by an old Seinfeld bit: "It > must be hard to be a guy in China. Even if you're a one in a million kind of > guy, there's a thousand other guys just like you." > > I'd had something over 30 jobs by the time I was 38. I never realized that > made me cutting-edge. (Bleeding edge, maybe...) > > All this new information comes at a time when we have dwindling resources > to actually do anything with it, and in at least two key ways: > Financial/material, in that more people and more resource-usage and a > struggline ecology means more cost; and in what for lack of a better term > I'll call creative bandwidth, as we struggle with assimilating the new > information. There's an excellent chance that we know, right now, what we > need to in order to [pick one: find a source of limitless energy; cure AIDS; > cure cancer; feed all the world's hungry, forever; travel tot he stars in > a heartbeat; make up your own...], but we don't have the > wherewithal to process the information to find the answer, and might not > have the physical or fiscal resources to implement these wondrous fixes. > Singularity Beings could do all that for us, of course -- assuming they > cared, and that we could communicate to them what we needed. > > Finally (for the moment): as I got to about the three-minute mark, the > thought came into my head that "future shock" was real, but it's not what we > imagined it would be: The shock is essentially a form of denial. Because we > blot all this out in order to continue with our lives, we cling to the ways > we've done things in the illusion they'll carry forward and even hark back > to imagined past-ways, instead of dealing with the rate at which things > change. And in so doing, we insure that some things stay close enough to the > same that we can continue with our lives. > > > > On 2009-02-20, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The statistics in this short clip are amazing -- although some of the >> predictive ones sound a bit iffy. Do look at this. >> Nancy >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: 2/20/2009 12:17:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time >> Subj: Fwd: Did You Know? >> >> >> >> >> >> SONY PLAYED THIS VIDEO AT THEIR EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE THIS YEAR. >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY >> >> >> >> >> >> * >> * >> = >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> You can't always choose whom you love, but you can choose how to find >> them. *Start with AOL >> Personals.<http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000002> >> * >> >> >> >> >> -- David Ennocenti 9 West Crest Drive Rochester, NY 14606 585-426-2348 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
