Comments on: David Brin: is America’s loss the world’s gain? http://futurismic.com/2009/11/30/david-brin-is-americas-loss-the-worlds-gain/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Sat, 19 May 2012 23:03:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Harry Gebel http://futurismic.com/2009/11/30/david-brin-is-americas-loss-the-worlds-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-75202 Harry Gebel Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:36:07 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9711#comment-75202 He definitely talks about more traditional conservatives as people who can be talked with and who have some good ideas, although he personally leans more towards a liberal viewpoint. Part of the problem with categorizing Brin (and the reason he doesn't like the whole left-right system) is that he takes each issue on its own merits instead of going with loyalty to a platform; the way the two main parties have drawn their lines over here makes people who decide on an issue-by-issue basis seem like liberals to conservatives, and like conservatives to liberals. It's very disillusioning to those of us in the middle; people who actually think about what they believe have been pretty much abandoned by both parties on this side of the Atlantic. He definitely talks about more traditional conservatives as people who can be talked with and who have some good ideas, although he personally leans more towards a liberal viewpoint. Part of the problem with categorizing Brin (and the reason he doesn’t like the whole left-right system) is that he takes each issue on its own merits instead of going with loyalty to a platform; the way the two main parties have drawn their lines over here makes people who decide on an issue-by-issue basis seem like liberals to conservatives, and like conservatives to liberals. It’s very disillusioning to those of us in the middle; people who actually think about what they believe have been pretty much abandoned by both parties on this side of the Atlantic.

]]> By: Paul Raven http://futurismic.com/2009/11/30/david-brin-is-americas-loss-the-worlds-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-75183 Paul Raven Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:00:52 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9711#comment-75183 Harry: most of Brin's writing on politics that I've read (which, I confess, is the small percentage of it that isn't way over my head) seemed to be explicitly arguing for a return to conservatism of the old school, as opposed to current Republican dogmatism and lowest-common-denominator entrenchment. I think he currently identifies with the Democratic party more because they appeal to reason and logic than because he agrees with their conclusions - identifying with their methods if not their aims, if that makes any sense. But that may be a skewed viewpoint given that I live in the UK - the consensus definition of "liberal" as portrayed by media from the US makes our homegrown conservatism look permissive and modern by comparison. That's not a judgement, by the way, more an observation - there's few people less partisan than an anarchist. :) Harry: most of Brin’s writing on politics that I’ve read (which, I confess, is the small percentage of it that isn’t way over my head) seemed to be explicitly arguing for a return to conservatism of the old school, as opposed to current Republican dogmatism and lowest-common-denominator entrenchment. I think he currently identifies with the Democratic party more because they appeal to reason and logic than because he agrees with their conclusions – identifying with their methods if not their aims, if that makes any sense.

But that may be a skewed viewpoint given that I live in the UK – the consensus definition of “liberal” as portrayed by media from the US makes our homegrown conservatism look permissive and modern by comparison.

That’s not a judgement, by the way, more an observation – there’s few people less partisan than an anarchist. :)

]]> By: Harry Gebel http://futurismic.com/2009/11/30/david-brin-is-americas-loss-the-worlds-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-74845 Harry Gebel Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:36:02 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9711#comment-74845 I'm not sure why you classify David Brin as a "self-identified" conservative. On the politics section of his web site he repeatedly identifies with the Democratic party and (while expressing intense skepticism for the whole left-right identification system) consistently refers to himself as a moderate or liberal. I’m not sure why you classify David Brin as a “self-identified” conservative. On the politics section of his web site he repeatedly identifies with the Democratic party and (while expressing intense skepticism for the whole left-right identification system) consistently refers to himself as a moderate or liberal.

]]> By: Chad http://futurismic.com/2009/11/30/david-brin-is-americas-loss-the-worlds-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-58249 Chad Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:59:27 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9711#comment-58249 shoulders = soldiers...that was bad shoulders = soldiers…that was bad

]]> By: Chad http://futurismic.com/2009/11/30/david-brin-is-americas-loss-the-worlds-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-58248 Chad Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:58:29 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9711#comment-58248 I have to agree with Babylon. 50 years will probably not be enough time for the U.S. to really fail, and it is actually possible it is still the lone superpower at that point in time. However, when the U.S. does fade into retirement it will be known for: Pros - WWII will be huge. This will include the major part it played in the war and after the war (Brin). - Inventing and then practically giving the tech away - Freedom - Democracy - The Cold War (both positive and negative, but overall more positive) - The moon/space - Peace and prosperity – I don’t think it will be known for this, but it should. At what other point in history after the fall of the Roman Empire has there been peace between 1st world countries for this long? Sure there were a few proxy wars between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., but never a full fledged war. Without the U.S. acting as a stabilizing (yes, it failed at this sometimes) force much of the current progress would have been lost. Cons - Consumerism - Arrogant - Failed to keep advancing rights and freedom - Failed to keep advancing intellectual openness - Failed the environment While I agree with some of the Cons khannea lists [resource depletion, support of dictators (leftist dictators do and have existed), large prison population (though most of the prisons are from squalorous), etc.] I do not agree with: “Massive pollution/industrial consequences” I completely agree the U.S. did this, but singling it out is foolishness. Maybe including it for being slow to try and correct this is reasonable. “The first great state to purposefully condition all its soldiers to kill and maim enemy combatants” The U.S. is hardly the first great nation, small nation, city-state, etc. to condition it’s soldiers to kill. How do you think wars were fought before the last 200 years? With paintball guns? Ignoring if the current war in Iraq was necessary and just looking at the tactics, U.S. shoulders have shown remarkable restraint compared to most wars fought throughout history. What would have happened to Falluja in WWII? It would have been bombed, by the allies, into a smoking pile of rubble. I’m by no means saying U.S. soldiers don’t do despicable things, but they do less of them than most wars have seen throughout history. “Repugnant anti-intellectualist consumerism” I’m not even sure what this means. Is anti-intellectualism or is it a fancy way of saying “dumb consumer?” I have to agree with Babylon. 50 years will probably not be enough time for the U.S. to really fail, and it is actually possible it is still the lone superpower at that point in time. However, when the U.S. does fade into retirement it will be known for:

Pros
- WWII will be huge. This will include the major part it played in the war and after the war (Brin).
- Inventing and then practically giving the tech away
- Freedom
- Democracy
- The Cold War (both positive and negative, but overall more positive)
- The moon/space
- Peace and prosperity – I don’t think it will be known for this, but it should. At what other point in history after the fall of the Roman Empire has there been peace between 1st world countries for this long? Sure there were a few proxy wars between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., but never a full fledged war. Without the U.S. acting as a stabilizing (yes, it failed at this sometimes) force much of the current progress would have been lost.

Cons
- Consumerism
- Arrogant
- Failed to keep advancing rights and freedom
- Failed to keep advancing intellectual openness
- Failed the environment

While I agree with some of the Cons khannea lists [resource depletion, support of dictators (leftist dictators do and have existed), large prison population (though most of the prisons are from squalorous), etc.] I do not agree with:

“Massive pollution/industrial consequences”

I completely agree the U.S. did this, but singling it out is foolishness. Maybe including it for being slow to try and correct this is reasonable.

“The first great state to purposefully condition all its soldiers to kill and maim enemy combatants”

The U.S. is hardly the first great nation, small nation, city-state, etc. to condition it’s soldiers to kill. How do you think wars were fought before the last 200 years? With paintball guns? Ignoring if the current war in Iraq was necessary and just looking at the tactics, U.S. shoulders have shown remarkable restraint compared to most wars fought throughout history. What would have happened to Falluja in WWII? It would have been bombed, by the allies, into a smoking pile of rubble. I’m by no means saying U.S. soldiers don’t do despicable things, but they do less of them than most wars have seen throughout history.

“Repugnant anti-intellectualist consumerism”

I’m not even sure what this means. Is anti-intellectualism or is it a fancy way of saying “dumb consumer?”

]]>