|
| What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable | 
| Author: John Brockman
Publisher: Harper Perennial
Category: Book
List Price: $13.95
Buy New: $3.70
You Save: $10.25 (73%)
New (49) from $3.70
Avg. Customer Rating:  15 reviews
Sales Rank: 46106
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 336
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.2 x 1
ISBN: 0061214957
Dewey Decimal Number: 001
EAN: 9780061214950
ASIN: 0061214957
Publication Date: March 1, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: New, Excellent Condition , Immediate Shipping, Email Notification, Professional Service, MILLIONS Served, SATISFACTION GUARANTEED!
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
From Copernicus to Darwin, to current-day thinkers, scientists have always promoted theories and unveiled discoveries that challenge everything society holds dear; ideas with both positive and dire consequences. Many thoughts that resonate today are dangerous not because they are assumed to be false, but because they might turn out to be true. What do the world's leading scientists and thinkers consider to be their most dangerous idea? Through the leading online forum Edge (www.edge.org), the call went out, and this compelling and easily digestible volume collects the answers. From using medication to permanently alter our personalities to contemplating a universe in which we are utterly alone, to the idea that the universe might be fundamentally inexplicable, What Is Your Dangerous Idea? takes an unflinching look at the daring, breathtaking, sometimes terrifying thoughts that could forever alter our world and the way we live in it.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 10 more reviews...
 Subjective and emotional July 26, 2008
the title, "What is your dangerous idea" is subjective and emotional. a question asked by academia of academia. the general public tends to consider academia objective, cool, and calculating; dealing only in what can rigorously be proved; eschewing fantasy and dogma.
not always true. in general, pure mathematicians and physicists actively dislike each other. an emotional hairsplitting over rigor. the naive student declaring desire to work in both fields can find him/her self shunned in both. some of academia are emotionally attached to the belief that there's no such thing as a soul. instead of "i don't know", they desperately clutch dogma that is beyond proof one way or another. some of academia are emotionally attached to the dogma that consciousness is only chemical or that the creation of life was a spontaneous random freak accident. don't ask them to support that with more than just "consistencies". you'll find all of that and more in this book. overall, academia is every bit as boring as their polar opposites the religious fundamentalists. a token "artist" in this book complains that she can't control the interpretation of her work. she declares free interpretation is dangerous :-) i'm not kidding. rotfl. but it fits right in to this book.
yes, i did actually read the book. i was hoping for the concrete, objective and revolutionary but i should have realized that the question would only elicit the subjective, emotional, and neurotic.
and since the title asks, i'll tell you my dangerous idea. the idea itself is actually objective. the applications subjective. There are huge gaping holes in our objective knowledge, so our imaginations fill in the gaps with what i'll call 'fairy tales' or what most people call 'belief'. guess what? your beliefs don't have to be sacred. they can be mere temporary expedients. you are free to either construct your beliefs to enhance your life, or you can just buy the ready-made fairy tales that the world serves up every day to control you. i suggest you use your imagination. choose wisely. why dangerous? widespread application would set the masses free and precipitate a golden age of individuality, creativity, and innovation. i'm sure that poor "artist" would be horrified.
 Entertaining and thought provoking June 15, 2008
I got this book as a gift and really knew nothing about it. Almost immediately upon starting, I felt drawn in, eager to continue reading.
The book is very well-edited, so that essays that discuss similar dangerous ideas are grouped together. The result is that the reader develops an increasingly nuanced and detailed understanding of concepts -- such as the "anthropic view" of physical laws -- that might have been entirely unfamiliar before starting the book.
The essays are generally excellent at explaining why the topics are relevant to modern life. Authors are asked to answer the question, "Why is your idea dangerous?" In so doing, they help the reader to understand why topics like the philosophy of mind, comparative religion, and evolutionary theory really matter. Many of the dangerous ideas presented really do challenge the political, economic, and sociological structures of our world.
It's also nice that the essays are short. If one essay fails to spark your interest, you only need to wade through 3 or 4 pages before the next one begins.
I highly recommend this book.
A treasure of ideas from 108 of our most creative minds May 11, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
(Plus Richard Dawkins, who writes an Afterword.)
I'll give you some dangerous ideas. Take steps to reduce the human population worldwide to around a billion people and keep it there. Take the biological desire of people to play house and be mothers and fathers, and redirect it into responsible stewardship of the planet.
Don't like that one? Seems too draconian? How about this? End all tax exempt status for churches, mosques, etc. (Resounding voice coming onstage: "Only when they tear my cold, dead fingers from the collection plate!")
Here's another: realize that to know all is to forgive all, and that we are all just biological automations acting out our genetic drives and have no more free will than an ant on the pheromone trail. Deal with people acting in antisocial ways by (1) curing them with psychopharmacology, surgery, retraining, or (2) euthanasia.
Decriminalize street drug use. Allow Phillip Morris to get into the cannabis business and Merck to process opium into heroin. If some people become dysfunctional, see previous dangerous idea and employ it.
Well, none of John Brockman's esteemed contributors came up with anything quite THAT dangerous, probably because the danger of such ideas is most immediately to the person who would advance them! Psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse gives us some guidance on why such ideas are not being advanced in this book in his modest essay on "Unspeakable Ideas." (pp. 193-195) Here's one: "when your business group is trying to deal with a savvy competitor, say, `It seems to me that their product is superior, because they are smarter than we are.'" Also unspeakable is, "I will only do what benefits me." Nesse writes that saying something like that is akin to committing "social suicide."
David Lykken thinks that parents ought to be required to get licenses to parent and prove they are twenty-one years old, married, and self-supporting. (pp. 175-176)
Jordan Pollack urges us (tongue in cheek, I presume) to embrace "faith-based science." He writes, "physics could sing the psalm that perpetual motion would solve the energy crisis..." with God "on our side to repeal the second law of thermodynamics!" "Astronomy could embrace astrology and do grassroots PR with daily horoscopes to gain mass support for a new space program." (pp. 156-158)
John Allen Paulos joins the Buddha and David Hume and presents the self as "an ever-changing collection of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, that is not an essential and persistent entity but a conceptual chimera." (p. 152)
Some of the other "dangerous ideas" concern such things as science versus religion (e.g., Sam Harris's "Science Must Destroy Religion" and Philip W. Anderson's "The Posterior Probability of Any Particular God Is Pretty Small"); exciting speculations (Terrence Sejnowski's "When Will the Internet Become Aware of Itself?"), cosmological conjectures (Brian Greene's "The Multiverse," and Leonard Susskind's "The `Landscape'").
Some of the ideas are not dangerous at all of course, and some are only dangerous to certain segments of society. The idea that the Christian God does not exist is no skin off my teeth and no Buddhist feels threatened by it, but television evangelicals find it downright scary. Judith Rich Harris advances the idea that parents really don't shape their children's mores (their peers and the larger society does). This idea isn't threatening at all unless you are a Pygmalion sort of parent infused with a weighty sense of responsibility, and in that case, her idea can help you to chill out.
Some other ideas may or may not be seen as dangerous. Karl Sabbagh suggests that "The Human Brain Will Never Understand the Universe," and Lawrence M. Krauss wants us to know that "The World May Be Fundamentally Inexplicable." Personally I think they're both right, but that shouldn't keep us from trying to expand the range of our knowledge and understanding. Seth Lloyd even goes so far as to suggest that one of our ideas "is likely to have the unintended consequence of destroying everything we know." He adds that "we cannot stop creating and exploring new ideas. The genie of ingenuity is out of the bottle. To suppress the power of ideas will hasten catastrophe, not avert it." (p. 101)
There are several essays on how drugs might, can, and will affect us (e.g., "Drugs May Change the Patterns of Human Love" by Helen Fisher, and "Using Medications to Change Personality" by Samuel Barondes). There are essays on politics and economics (e.g., Michael Shermer's ode to fiscal conservative and social liberalism, "Where Goods Cross Frontiers, Armies Won't" and Matt Ridley's "Government Is the Problem, Not the Solution"), and on the dangers and promises of futuristic technologies by Ray Kurzweil, Freeman J. Dyson and others. In fact there is so much in this book that a reader could study the ideas for decades--seriously--and hardly scratch the surface of what is implied, hoped for, dreamed of, and feared. It is a great collection of ideas, a masterful work of compilation and editing by science's most talented and creative editor, John Brockman. Don't miss this book. It's even better than Brockman's previous collection "What We Believe But Cannot Prove."
Let me throw in one more dangerous idea not in the book (lest I wax too sanguine): suppose that by bioengineering violent aggression out of the human genome (which seems like a good idea) we end up with something like H.G. Wells' Eloi? Can it be true that humans must be violently aggressive, and if not, will become stagnant and exploitable? One might argue that there would then be no exploiter, but should one appear what would--could--we do?
 Capitalizing on others' bad writing April 7, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
If you like reading dissenting views on an online forum, you'll probably enjoy this book. But then again, you could save the cover price and simply visit the forum.
The articles in this book are supposedly taken from members of Brockman's online forum, but some entries are horribly out-of-date and several are simply reprints from other books.
Dry, dull, and boring with a capital B. Poorly written, linear and isolated (not to mention unoriginal) ideas. Nothing "dangerous" here except one man's shameless quest for a title that will sell more copies.
If you'd really like to hear new, inventive and genuinely thought-out ideas, try the Ted talks.
This book was a severe disappointment. I will never read another by Brockman again. A cheap shot at making bucks!
Experts in one field may know absolutely nothing about ideas from another field, and often are terrible writers, too. January 16, 2008
5 out of 15 found this review helpful
Experts in one field may, as this Book shows, know absolutely nothing about matters in another field of study. This Book is often, but not always, a good example of the maxim:"Ignorance is bliss." Moreover, underlying this Book is a connotation that experts are somehow generally more enlightened than the common man. Baloney! In my experience, and I'm a male 55 year old lawyer with several other graduate degrees, professors, professionals (e.g., doctors and lawyers), and husbands often jabber on about matters they know little or nothing about. This Book is a good, no, a perfect, example of that rule. In addition, the writing, i.e., the use of the written word, is frequently atrocious, sometimes sinking to the level of gobbledegook. I know third graders that can write better than some of the authors in this Book. And the editing.... In short, THIS "book(???)" STINKS!!!!! However, don't just listen to me. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) interestingly made the following comment four centuries ago: "For it seemed to me that much more truth could be found in the reasonings which a man makes concerning matters that concern him than in those which some scholar makes in his study about speculative matters. For the consequences of the former will soon punish the man if he judges wrongly, whereas the latter have no practical consequences and no importance for the scholar except that perhaps the further they are from common sense the more pride will he take in them, since he will have had to use much more skill and ingenuity in trying to render them plausible." A.C. Grayling, "Descartes: The Life and Times of a Genius," p. 28 (Walker Publishing Company, Inc., 2005).
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
