Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
larvatus.com
Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
1–10 of 82 posts
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#2Coincidentally I just finished State of Fear last night, a Crichton novel about Eco terrorism. To be honest parts of it made me uncomfortable but with an open mind it can be a very interesting read. His idea of the PLM complex is a pretty interesting take on our current state of affairs.
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#3This veers far too heavily into cranky-old-man territory.
It tries to take a purely boolean result of knowing the future, when the real power comes from increasing ones prediction odds ever so slightly. And all it takes is very small increases in ones own odds over the average to benefit heavily relative to blindly marching into the future.
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#4Why does anyone feel a need to go further than “speculation is entertaining” or “speculation sells”?
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#5This veers far too heavily into cranky-old-man territory. It tries to take a purely boolean result of knowing the future, when the real power comes from increasing ones prediction odds ever so slightly. And all it takes is very small increases in ones own odds over the average to benefit heavily relative to blindly marching into the future.
> This veers far too heavily into cranky-old-man territory
This was 100% Chricton's persona for about the last 20 years of his life. Perhaps the most amazing thing was how deeply he was also into some really crazy new age stuff, too.
Dictionary definition of don't keep your mind so open that your brains fall out.
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#6This veers far too heavily into cranky-old-man territory. It tries to take a purely boolean result of knowing the future, when the real power comes from increasing ones prediction odds ever so slightly. And all it takes is very small increases in ones own odds over the average to benefit heavily relative to blindly marching into the future.
I don't think so... if he was really cranky he wouldn't have called it speculation, which is an extremely generous word for what can easily be interpreted as intentionally manipulative narrative.
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#710 years ago, I was a religious Techcrunch reader. I read every article. Eventually, I noticed something peculiar: I'd have an idea for a startup, and six months or so later (about the time it would've taken me to do it) someone would come out with that idea! It happened enough times that it pushed me to stop reading the same tech news as everyone else, because I didn't want to succumb to group think.
I've since extended that policy to most of my news...especially social platforms like Facebook and Twitter long before fake news became a thing. The irony is that I've been oft criticized by friends and family for being ill-informed by not reading CNN.
I do wonder how much speculation, opinion and general exposure to ways of thinking shape our thoughts in subtle ways. I'm generally afraid of a future where this phenomenon becomes better understood and weaponized.
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#8This veers far too heavily into cranky-old-man territory. It tries to take a purely boolean result of knowing the future, when the real power comes from increasing ones prediction odds ever so slightly. And all it takes is very small increases in ones own odds over the average to benefit heavily relative to blindly marching into the future.
I don't think so... if he was really cranky he wouldn't have called it speculation, which is an extremely generous word for what can easily be interpreted as intentionally manipulative narrative.
It seems like a pretty broadly defeatist attitude towards current actions having agency over the future:
> We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K wasn’t a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the air.
> But my point is, for pending legislation as with everything else, nobody knows the future.
> What will be the effect of electing a certain president, or a supreme court justice? Nobody knows.
If his focus was purely towards the charlatans who make predictions and keep getting it wrong with no accountability, I would agree. But he takes it a step further by seemingly emphasizing the futility of the very act of trying to foresee and head off potentially bad situations be it technical, legislative or political.
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#9Coincidentally I just finished State of Fear last night, a Crichton novel about Eco terrorism. To be honest parts of it made me uncomfortable but with an open mind it can be a very interesting read. His idea of the PLM complex is a pretty interesting take on our current state of affairs.
I read this book shortly after its publication...I haven't thought much about it since I read it, but I'm curious how well its aged, given what I remember about the contents. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what parts made you uncomfortable, though.
Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)
#10Coincidentally I just finished State of Fear last night, a Crichton novel about Eco terrorism. To be honest parts of it made me uncomfortable but with an open mind it can be a very interesting read. His idea of the PLM complex is a pretty interesting take on our current state of affairs.
Worth reading this response by James Hansen:
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/viewpoint.cf...