Oh to be able to predict the future, what a gift that would
be. Many have made attempts to quantify
our complex systems, derive patterns and predict the future. Some noteworthy,
some forgettable, some intelligent, and some with let’s call it a lack of keen
observational skills. I don’t doubt the
need for models in order to give us a glimpse at possible future outcomes, but
the complexity inherent in the systems we are trying to model seems to allow
for non-experts (media and politicians) to use any short-comings of our predictive
capacities (I speak primarily of global warming) as a means of dismissing
concerns and carrying on in the current trajectory.
In reading Ehrlich (2009) and his prognostications about the
dangers of exponential population growth, another future theorist was brought
to mind. In 1945 in the midst of
evolving nuclear technology, George Orwell wrote an essay called “You and the
Atomic Bomb” in which he contemplated the significance of this new technology
for future generations, and in particular the impact this new technology would
have on the organization of Nation States.
I’ve noted some of the more interesting excerpts and points below.
·
Had the bomb been inexpensive to make, “the
distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out,
and the power of the state over the individual would have been greatly weekend”
(Orwell, 1945, para. 3).
·
“Ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive
or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the
dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance” (Orwell,
1945, para. 4).
·
“For example, tanks, battleships and bombing
planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and
hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the
strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it —
gives claws to the weak” (Orwell, 1945, para 5).
·
“The great age of democracy and of national
self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle” (Orwell, 1945, para
6).
·
“Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for
many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the re-imposition of
slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as
horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity” (Orwell, 1945, para 9).
After revisiting this article I could not help but think of
energy as the new chain that binds us to an unchanging paradigm. Those in power continue to centralize
existing energy sources while simultaneously repressing innovation (you need
look no further than the 2012 Federal budget) as a means of maintaining the
status quo. As was stated in the
philosophers cafe this week: “We need to innovate and take risks” (Suhr, 2012). This is the only way change will come
about. Innovation in the realm of energy
could free developing nations from the remnants of a destructive imperial age
and cold war. As Zane alludes to in his description
of Levin in lecture one, this does not have to be from new energy sources, but
can come in the form of small scale energy sources that promote local autonomy.
So while our predictive powers might not rank very high on
Meadows (1997) list of “places to intervene in a system,” they can serve as
inspiration, and fuel discussions that can lead to “out of the box thinking”,
that could lead to not using the phrase “out of the box.”
References:
Ehrlich, Paul, & Ehrlich, Anne H. (2009). The Population Bomb Revisited. Electronic Journal of Sustainable
Development, 1(3), 63-71.
Orwell, G. (1945).
You me and the Atomic Bomb. Tribune. — GB, London. — October 19, 1945.
Suhr, N.
(2012). Re: social justice and the
population bomb. In the Discussion
Forum. Wednesday, 16 May 2012, 02:13 PM.
No comments:
Post a Comment