Antinora's Third Maxim:
The attractiveness of a woman and the intensity with which she demands free contraceptives are inversely proportional.
The history of invention is not the history of a necessary future to which we must adapt or die, but rather of failed futures, and of futures firmly fixed in the past. We do not have a history of invention, but instead histories of the invention of only some of the technologies which were later successful (Edgerton, 2006: 184. Emphasis as original).
And there’s the moral of the story: the possibilities around technology are multiple. They are not limitless, but they aren’t singular either, and they certainly are not linear. There are choices when it comes to the technologies we choose to take on, and choices about how we make use of them, when and if.
"As I discuss here, there is nothing good for society about people saving money. If people could save something useful, like the environment, [ed: or energy in a useful/efficient form] then they would be doing a social good. But saving numbers on a computer screen does nothing."My only quibble is that that "nothing" being done might actually be a the creation of a deflationary economic tailspin. One where the folk are desperate for currency and the leverage the (((( bankers )))) have over the people increases every quarter. Although Ari eventually gets around to explaining this (it's the point of his blog in fact) I just thought I should be clear about it. In fact, to be crystal I'll repeat myself: capital is imaginary and we can imagine it any way we like. We used to imagine capital as towering Gothic cathedrals—mutli–generational public works projects that exemplified perfectly the meaning of the word 'employment'. While we are at it, I should mention that the distribution of the surplus is completely up to us too. Personally, I prefer not to sacrifice reality to the god of illusion on an altar of stupidity but you're free to bow down to whichever Dildolech you prefer. That's none of my business.
|The Personification of Science|
... We ought to be content to conclude that power over nature is not the only precondition of human happiness, just as it is not the only goal of cultural endeavor; we ought not to infer from it that technical progress is without value for the economics of our happiness. One would like to ask: is there, then, no positive gain in pleasure, no unequivocal increase in my feeling of happiness, if I can, as often as I please, hear the voice of a child of mine who is living hundreds of miles away or if I can learn in the shortest possible time after a friend has reached his destination that he has come through the long and difficult voyage unharmed? Does it mean nothing that medicine has succeeded in enormously reducing infant mortality and the danger of infection for women in childbirth, and, indeed, in considerably lengthening the average life of a civilized man? And there is a long list that might be added to benefits of this kind which we owe to the much-despised era of scientific and technical advances.The real cost of every advance is that which we must leave behind...