Some science fiction (sf) fans have taken offense at my claim that non-fiction analysis of future tech scenarios can be more accurate than sf scenarios, whose authors have other priorities. So I may periodically critique recent sf stories with ems for accuracy. Note that I’m not implying that such stories
Doctorow also presents the rather silly theory that World War I was caused by elites turning on each other because they ran out of “new worlds to plunder.” The world economy, and investment returns, were as strong just before that war as they’d been a few decades before.
What seems "silly" is the assumption that military policy depends on the immediate economic climate. That capital doesn't look ahead. When Britain fell below Germany in steel production, why wouldn't this have an effect on British militarism like (but much greater than) the effect the rise of China has on engendering U.S. militarism?
" Your dad hires economists for intellectual cover, to prove his dynastic fortunes and political influence are the outcome of a complex, self-correcting mechanism with the mystical power to pluck the deserving out of the teeming mass of humanity and elevate them so they can wisely guide us. They have a science-y vocabulary conceived of solely to praise people like your father. Like job creator."
At least two episodes of 'Black Mirror' touch on ems-related concepts – s02e04 'White Christmas' and s03e04 'San Junipero'. (A third, s02e01 'Be Right Back', also has a pinch of relevance.) It's available on Netflix – your critiques would be interesting!
I haven't read the book but I think Doctorow has a good intuition of our present times when in many people's perception neoliberal consensus has reached its saturation point and is heading towords the bottom of the slope, so he gives a hegelian twist to his story. Why put ems to work, like it would have been the default imperative until very recently, when you can search for immortality in, what it seams, a post scarcity anarcho communist society
Doctorow also presents the rather silly theory that World War I was caused by elites turning on each other because they ran out of “new worlds to plunder.” The world economy, and investment returns, were as strong just before that war as they’d been a few decades before.
What seems "silly" is the assumption that military policy depends on the immediate economic climate. That capital doesn't look ahead. When Britain fell below Germany in steel production, why wouldn't this have an effect on British militarism like (but much greater than) the effect the rise of China has on engendering U.S. militarism?
" Your dad hires economists for intellectual cover, to prove his dynastic fortunes and political influence are the outcome of a complex, self-correcting mechanism with the mystical power to pluck the deserving out of the teeming mass of humanity and elevate them so they can wisely guide us. They have a science-y vocabulary conceived of solely to praise people like your father. Like job creator."
Not false.
I may get around to that sometime.
That is indeed a very good post.
The WWI thesis may be silly, but some economists do take it seriously. It is ultimately wrong, though https://pseudoerasmus.com/2...
At least two episodes of 'Black Mirror' touch on ems-related concepts – s02e04 'White Christmas' and s03e04 'San Junipero'. (A third, s02e01 'Be Right Back', also has a pinch of relevance.) It's available on Netflix – your critiques would be interesting!
I haven't read the book but I think Doctorow has a good intuition of our present times when in many people's perception neoliberal consensus has reached its saturation point and is heading towords the bottom of the slope, so he gives a hegelian twist to his story. Why put ems to work, like it would have been the default imperative until very recently, when you can search for immortality in, what it seams, a post scarcity anarcho communist society