NETFUTURE

                    Technology and Human Responsibility

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue #118     A Publication of The Nature Institute         March 1, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Editor:  Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@netfuture.org)

                  On the Web: http://www.netfuture.org/
     You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.

NetFuture is a reader-supported publication.


CONTENTS
---------

Editor's Note
   Lowell Monke's New Book
   On Activism and an Open Mind

Water, Energy, and Global Warming (Michael D'Aleo and Stephen Edelglass)
   Have we selected our primary villain too soon?

Tech Knowledge Revue (Langdon Winner)
   Introducing the Automatic Professor Machine

DEPARTMENTS

Correspondence
   Ravel at Camphill (David Plank)
   Don't Mistake Power for God (Dale Lehman)
   Animal Cruelty Is Related to Violence among Humans (David Miller)
   Sources for Alternative Meats (Phil Walsh)

Announcements and Resources
   Two Technology-criticism Web Sites

About this newsletter


==========================================================================

                              EDITOR'S NOTE


Lowell Monke's New Book
-----------------------

A book by NetFuture's occasional columnist, Lowell Monke, has just been
published by the State University of New York Press.  Co-authored with
R.W. Burniske, a researcher in the Computer Writing and Research
Laboratory at the University of Texas, the book is called Breaking Down
the Digital Walls: Learning to Teach in a Post-Modem World.  It includes,
along with much other good stuff, Lowell's wonderful essay, "The Web and
the Plow", first published in NF #19.  Both authors were, during the
writing of this book, deeply engaged in teaching computer technology to
high school students, and the book reflects some deep thinking about their
experiences.

Go to www.sunypress.edu/breaking.html for sample chapters and ordering
information.  I hope to publish an excerpt from the book in a later issue.


On Activism and an Open Mind
----------------------------

When we channel our environmental concerns into activism, we always place
our understanding at risk.  We need the movements and causes, of course,
but it requires special vigilance to prevent our activist commitments from
clouding our vision.  Anyone who has once taken a public stand knows that
openness to fresh insights conflicting with this stand demands a certain
selflessness.  Egotism has doubtless sabotaged the growth potential of
many a promising movement.

Yet an inflexible reading of the facts is particularly ironic when it
comes to the environment, because if ecology has taught us anything at
all, it's that there is always something else to consider, always
additional complicating factors.

I present the feature article in this issue with considerable trepidation,
since it may tread heavily on the sensitivities of any who take global
warming as a matter of simple fact related to unambiguous causes.  The
authors, Michael D'Aleo and Stephen Edelglass, were moved to look at the
larger picture, and this led them to acknowledge the legitimate doubts
about the role of carbon dioxide.  It also led them to surprising
questions about the most "innocent" of atmospheric emissions, water vapor
-- and particularly the high-temperature vapor produced by combustion.  If
they are justified in their concerns, then such technologies of the future
as hydrogen fuel cells (whose only emission is water) may not be quite the
perfect answers we have imagined.

D'Aleo and Edelglass, recognizing the seriousness of the unsettled
questions framing the current debate, remain noncommittal about the role
of carbon dioxide and the fact of warming itself, as a global
phenomenon.  But they certainly agree that our willingness to alter
atmospheric composition on a wholesale level is a willingness to play
Russian roulette with ecological balances we have scarcely begun to
understand.

What prompted their inquiry in the first place was D'Aleo's reflection
upon the early advertisement of the automobile as the solution to a major
pollution problem of the last century -- namely, the mountains of horse
manure accumulating in rapidly growing cities.  The automobile's own
contribution to pollution didn't figure in the calculations of the time.
What, D'Aleo wondered, are we leaving out of our calculations today when
we quickly embrace `benign' alternatives to fossil fuels and other carbon
dioxide sources?

Sadly and unexpectedly, Stephen Edelglass died in November, 2000, after
this paper was drafted.  He and D'Aleo had been instrumental in forming
SENSRI, a small, sister organization of The Nature Institute (publisher of
NetFuture).  Like the Institute, SENSRI is devoted to looking at problems
contextually.

I sincerely hope their paper will be received in the spirit it deserves:
not as merely "for" or "against" any one of the hardened battle positions
of the day, but rather as part of an unceasing movement toward a more
encompassing understanding.

SLT

Goto table of contents


==========================================================================

                    WATER, ENERGY, AND GLOBAL WARMING

                   Michael D'Aleo and Stephen Edelglass

The following is an abridgment, paraphrase, and summary of a larger paper
(with explicit calculations and references) expected to be available by
March 8 at http://natureinstitute.org.

Author Michael D'Aleo (sensriresearch@aol.com), who is trained both as
engineer and educator, has spent a number of years working in industry,
receiving several patents along the way.  His main interest has been to
solve technical problems artistically, based on processes found in the
natural world.  He currently teaches physical science and mathematics at
the Spring Hill Waldorf School in Saratoga Springs, New York.  He co-
authored the recent book, Sensible Physics Teaching, with Stephen
Edelglass.

Dr. Edelglass was for many years on the faculty of the Cooper Union for
the Advancement of Science and Art in New York City.  He then taught high
school mathematics and physics at the Green Meadow Waldorf School in
Spring Valley, New York, until his death last year.  In addition to
Sensible Physics Teaching, he co-authored The Marriage of Sense
and Thought: Imaginative Participation in Science.


                          ---------------------

                    WATER, ENERGY, AND GLOBAL WARMING


We suspect that the public's affinity for well-defined (and preferably
villainous!) causes throws light on the current debates about global
climate change.  The fixation upon a single atmospheric constituent --
carbon dioxide, which has the advantage of now being widely viewed as a
dangerous pollutant -- may have encouraged us to ignore elements of the
larger picture.  Our intention here is to fill out another part of that
picture in a way that may prove startling:  it appears that perfectly
"harmless" water vapor and the actual quantity of energy produced with it
may be at least as much the villains as carbon dioxide.


Some Questions
--------------

Given the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and given the
insulating properties of this gas, it is natural to wonder whether we are
looking at the cause of global warming.  But has there actually been
warming over the past century, and if so, how much?

The problem underlying the current debate is that there are two
conflicting sets of data.  Ground-based thermometer readings from land-
based weather stations indicate a temperature rise of about 0.6 degrees C
since record-keeping began in the nineteenth century.  Most of this
increase occurs in the second half of the twentieth century, with the
greater part, 0.2 to 0.3 degrees, coming after 1975.  While these figures
may seem small, they are potentially significant for climate change.

A second set of measurements, available only since 1980, derives from
satellites and balloons that scan the temperature of the lower atmosphere
across the entire surface of the planet.  These measurements show
an increase ranging from under 0.1 degree C to essentially zero.  So while
the first method indicates a rather substantial change, the second
suggests a fairly modest change.  Much of the wrangling focuses on which
set of data is correct.

The picture becomes more interesting when a comparison is made between
urban and rural ground-based weather stations.  Urban stations show a
significantly greater temperature increase.  In fact, many rural stations
show no change at all.  This has led scientists to speculate about the
existence of a so-called "heat island effect", which might affect our
global temperature measurements.  In the late 1990s, NASA completed a
study of this effect in Atlanta, Georgia.  The study showed temperatures
inside Atlanta up to 8 degrees F higher than the surrounding countryside.
The suggested explanation is that man-made materials such as concrete and
asphalt store more of the sun's heat energy than forests do.  A number of
studies also found significant temperature differences between downtown
business districts and downtown treed parks.  The treed parks were up to 7
degrees F cooler than adjacent business areas.

Another interesting phenomenon is the suspected link between forest fires
and global warming.  These fires may play a significant role in
contributing to global temperature changes. At least one study suggests
that up to 40% of the global greenhouse gas emissions may result from
combustion due to forest fires that occur around the world.  The report
notes that forest destruction further reduces plant absorption of carbon
dioxide.

The link between global temperature increases and increased levels of
carbon dioxide is actually quite complex and not without its share of
uncertainty.  By analyzing gas bubbles trapped in ice core samples, one
group of scientists found that the levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, previously thought to be constant, actually varied
significantly during the last 11,000 years prior to the industrial age.

They also found that, during some earlier periods, the temperature
increased before the carbon dioxide levels began to rise, sometimes
with as much as a 400-to-1000-year lag.  While this does not imply there
is no link between global temperature and carbon dioxide levels, it does
suggest that other mechanisms may help determine global temperature
variation over time.

Finally and perhaps most puzzling:  scientists have noted that while many
weather stations worldwide have been reporting increases in average
temperature, there also appears to be a worldwide decrease in global rates
of evaporation.  This was unexpected, since warm air can receive more
moisture than cool air and thus, warmer air favors evaporation.

Has some mechanism put more water into the atmosphere, thereby reducing
the global rates of evaporation?


Water Cycles and Their Alteration
---------------------------------

Water is essential for life.  There are cycles of water transformation
from the individual organism all the way up to the scale of the entire
earth.  As always, a certain balance must be achieved to prevent what
supports life from becoming destructive.  The farmer hopes for a balance
of rain and sun for a good crop.  Too little rain and the crop withers;
too much brings decay and rot.

Water also plays a significant role in the earth's thermal balance.  The
specific heat of water (the amount of heat required to raise the
temperature of one gram of water by one degree centigrade) is higher than
for almost any other material.  Likewise for the amount of energy released
when water vapor condenses to the liquid state, although this effect is
even more energy-intensive.  The adage, "A watched pot never boils" pays
tribute to water's massive ability to absorb heat.  Nearly everyone has
experienced the moderating effect of the ocean and large lakes on the
climate of nearby cities.  These masses of water are slow to warm in hot
weather, and slow to cool in cold weather.

When a fossil fuel is burned, it produces not only carbon dioxide, but
also water vapor (steam), in relatively equal amounts.  A given unit of
octane (the main component in gasoline), when completely combusted, then
exhausted at 150 degrees C, and then cooled to an ambient temperature of
30 degrees, releases directly into the atmosphere ten times as much
thermal energy from the water as from the carbon dioxide.  In addition,
the insulating effect of water vapor and carbon dioxide are essentially
identical, so that water vapor adds substantially to any greenhouse effect
in those areas where combustion is occurring.

Cities and industrial areas, of course, are primary sources of water vapor
production via combustion.  But they also channel water into the
atmosphere by other means.  Cities present vast evaporative surfaces
preventing the return of water to underground aquifers.  (The evaporation
of water from hot asphalt after a summer rainstorm is particularly
noticeable.)  Water from city surfaces is channeled into storm sewers,
where it is finally put into a holding pond or river, from which further
evaporation occurs.  Additionally, ground water tables are falling in many
cities.

But if water tables are falling, where has the water gone?  You might
assume that levels have risen in surface bodies of water, but this has not
been observed.  Apparently the water has gone into the atmosphere.

Cities are not the only sites of large-scale, human-caused water vapor
emission.  Deforestation by burning releases tremendous amounts of water
into the atmosphere:  the tree itself is 50% water; combustion of the
remaining 50% (carbohydrates and cellulose) produces more water; and
destruction of the forest canopy exposes the moist forest soil to
evaporation by sun and wind.  Given present rates of deforestation, the
potential for regional climate modification is considerable, quite apart
from the production of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Deforestation releases more water vapor than carbon dioxide.


Water Emissions and Climate Modification
----------------------------------------

If we have been releasing more water into the atmosphere, might it be
falling out of the sky somewhere?  There is little evidence for increased
precipitation on a global scale.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association reports a small (one percent) increase in precipitation over
land in the twentieth century, while the same report notes a general
increase in cloud cover over both land and oceans in recent decades.  For
the most part, areas experiencing long wet spells seem to be
counterbalanced by other areas experiencing drought.

The fact that there seems to be little overall increase in precipitation
despite increasing human contributions of water vapor suggests that the
atmosphere's water content might be rising.  However, this would not be a
global effect.  Water vapor, unlike carbon dioxide, does not
diffuse easily through the atmosphere and is therefore concentrated near
the earth's surface.

Further, the atmospheric water vapor content will be higher near the
sources of water vapor -- for example, near cities and areas undergoing
deforestation -- rather than being evenly dispersed in the manner of
carbon dioxide.  Higher atmospheric water vapor would be expected near
cities on a continuing basis, as a result of the combustion of fossil
fuels.  It would also be expected near deforested areas on a short-term
basis; once deforestation is complete, the effect would cease.

All this has definite implications for climate modification.  In the first
place, given the higher temperature of the products of combustion, the
release of energy when water vapor is condensed, and the insulating
effects of water vapor, we should expect an increase in the cities'
average yearly temperature.  As we have seen, this "heat island effect"
has already been reported, although the link to water vapor and combustion
processes has been widely missed.

All energy production ultimately manifests as thermal energy.  A very
general calculation is therefore possible by taking the overall energy
produced in the U.S. in 1988 and assuming it to be evenly distributed on a
per capita basis.  In this case the energy production in a heavily
populated region such as Queens County, New York, turns out to be a rather
astounding 43% of the total solar energy incident upon the same area.

Of course, most of this energy production releases water vapor, and our
calculation leaves aside the further, insulating and thermal properties of
this vapor.  (You'll have noticed, for example, that a cloudy night is
generally warmer than a clear night, and that a hot desert cools off
significantly at night due to a lack of water in the air and immediate
surroundings.)

A second expectation is that moisture-rich metropolitan air should produce
rain when it moves over cooler, rural areas.  This is exactly what the
NASA study of Atlanta found.

Taking the per capita U.S. consumption of fossil fuels and again applying
it to Queens, one discovers that the water resulting from combustion would
cover the entire 109 square miles of the county to a depth of nearly 4
inches -- this in a place where the average annual rainfall is 42.82
inches.  Needless to say, not all the additional rainfall would fall
within the county, but these figures suggest the relative significance of
the added water.

Applying the same calculations to a rural area such as Herkimer County,
New York (with a population of 65,809 on an area of 1412 square miles),
one sees only a tiny fraction of the effects seen in urban areas.  For
example, human energy production turns out to equal only 0.1% of solar
input.


Reconciling the Data
--------------------

The role of water vapor and energy consumption also helps to explain
both sets of temperature data mentioned earlier.  Even though
global levels of carbon dioxide are fairly consistent worldwide,
temperature variations are not.  But these temperature variations --
including the urban-rural disparity -- do correlate well with energy
consumption and local water vapor production.

Moreover, there appears to be a strong correlation between areas of
deforestation and temperature change, as our analysis suggests should be
the case.  Temperature increases in the Amazon region and Siberia, where
significant deforestation is under way, seem to be unusually high.  This
contrasts with other interior areas, such as the Midwest Plains of the
U.S., where no warming is apparent.

Finally, the decrease in measured evaporation rates now also finds
explanation.  While the decrease is puzzling when taken only in
conjunction with a thesis of global warming, it makes sense once we add
human-related sources of water vapor to natural evaporation.  Furthermore,
as expected, the atmospheric water vapor content in North America (the one
place where reliable data are available) has been increasing during the
two-decade period starting in 1973.

On the view presented here, one would expect to see some
correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature change, since
both water vapor and carbon dioxide are major products of combustion.  But
water vapor's dominant role fits better with the overall pattern of global
data, helping to resolve the contentious debate between those who see
global warming and those who don't.  Local and regional warming are
occurring, even if the global picture shows no clear warming trend.

One additional note:  the role of increased cloudiness and its albedo
(reflective) effect is not discussed here, and requires further study.


We Are Environmental Causes
---------------------------

In sum, atmospheric warming -- the warming for which we currently have the
clearest evidence -- is a local and regional phenomenon more than a global
one, and it appears to be due more to human-caused energy production and
water emissions than to carbon dioxide emissions.

This is not to take a position for or against global warming as such.  Nor
is it to downplay the potentially grave significance of any large-
scale alteration of the natural environment.  Nor again is it to dismiss
the global significance of local and regional warming.  When a NASA study
of the metropolitan Atlanta area finds that the rainfall in rural areas
southeast of the city was the result of Atlanta's "heat-island" effect, we
can no longer deny mankind's effect on the greater environment.  The
possibilities of even larger regional effects continue to be studied by
various researchers.

Even if the globally averaged temperature fluctuations reflect improper
measurements or natural periodic variations, it seems impossible to
attribute local and possibly regional temperature fluctuations to anything
other than man-made influences.  We have yet to see a report that denies
the existence of the "heat-island" effect.  There is also sufficient
evidence to suggest that the atmospheric levels of water vapor are rising
and may be responsible for local and regional changes in temperature and
in weather patterns.

If there is a moral to the story, it is that prolonged scientific debate
and confusion can sometimes result from a failure to step back and look at
all aspects of a problem.  And a second moral is that out-of-context
technological fixes aimed at a single aspect of a complex whole may prove
destructive.  Much of the research on alternative fuels today is premised
on the belief that water vapor is a benign emission.  But if we have
learned anything over the past decade, it is that a life-giving element
can become destructive if it is removed from a balanced context.  The
faith being placed in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies (which emit
nothing but water) may need more thorough study.

The only solutions that will truly decrease the destabilization of the
environment are those that work in conjunction with the entire natural
process found in any given ecosystem.  A greater study and understanding
of the complex interactions found within natural ecosystems may indeed
yield important details in this regard and point to real solutions to
these problems.


                          ---------------------

If you are interested in the details of this paper, it can be found (after
March 8) here.

Goto table of contents


==========================================================================

               INTRODUCING THE AUTOMATIC PROFESSOR MACHINE

                              Langdon Winner
                             (winner@rpi.edu)

                                                      TECH KNOWLEDGE REVUE
                                                       3.1   March 1, 2001

Readers of NetFuture my be interested to learn that there's now a
streaming video version of my "Introducing the Automatic Professor
Machine" satire available on my web page:

   http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/apm1.html

The skit begins at the yearly meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Education where I am about to give the keynote address.
Soon I step aside, introducing my alter ego, Mr. L.C. Winner, dynamic
global entrepreneur and C.E.O. of the exciting new start-up, Educational
Smart Hardware Alma Mater, Inc.  From there L.C. rolls out his vision of
the "forces driving education today" and his sales pitch for the APM and
other innovative products from EDU-SHAM.

The 20-minute video is best seen if you have a fast ethernet or cable
connection.  Please note that the skit is in two parts that load
automatically (of course), but with a brief break between parts one and
two.  Also, I regret that the present production still lacks the sound
track for applause and crowd noise, although L.C. obviously hears them.
In the as yet unfinished final version, these sound effects will be
included along with "credits" at the conclusion and a musical theme,
"March of the Distant Educators".

The video is a shorter version of a lecture I've given at conferences and
universities during the past couple of years.  It offers my response to
the premises and pretensions of initiatives in digital, online education
that we hear so much about these days.  The origin of the piece was a
straightforward lecture on globalism and education I first gave at the
School of Education, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, in the middle
1990s.  After doing the same talk a few more times I decided to present
the ideas in a different way, taking the language of globalism, distance
education, computers in the classroom, and the like and pushing it over
the top.  The results now stream away for your edification and enjoyment
on my web page.

When I offer the longer, 40-minute version of this shtick, there are two
common responses.  Some people insist on telling L.C. Winner (who remains
at the podium during the question and answer period) that while they
appreciate the humor, they themselves have had excellent luck using
digital hardware and software in their online schools, colleges and
universities.  L.C. responds enthusiastically, telling the teachers and
administrators that he celebrates their successes; together they can work
toward the eventual goal -- "eliminating the inflexible ballast that has
come to be known as `education' during the past two centuries!"

Inevitably, there are people in the audience who inform L.C. that his
business plan is already out of date, superceded by aggressive
corporations and hucksters in the software, communications, university,
and info-ed business worlds who are wiring the world of distance learning
in ways far more extensive, lucrative and effective than the ham-fisted
schemes he's proposing.  L.C. admits that there's stiff competition out
there, but that EDU-SHAM still has a few tricks up its sleeve.  Among
these are developments that will eliminate the "two remaining bottlenecks"
that stand in the way of  achieving total penetration of education by
global, digital technology.  Alas, legal issues of "intellectual property,
copyrights, and patents" prevent L.C. from saying exactly what the
bottlenecks are or how they will be removed.

I hope to polish the Automatic Professor Machine video soon, making it
available on VHS tape and CD-ROM, perhaps by late spring.  Now that I've
gotten used to this medium, I'll move on to do a series of "techno-
satires" that raise issues about technology and human responsibility in a
variety of contexts. Your comments on the APM streaming video and its
approach are most welcome.


                          ---------------------

Tech Knowledge Revue is produced at the Chatham Center for Advanced Study,
339 Bashford Road, North Chatham, NY 12132.  Langdon Winner can be reached
at:  winner@rpi.edu and at his Web page:  http://www.rpi.edu/~winner .

Copyright Langdon Winner 2001.  Distributed as part of NetFuture:
http://www.netfuture.org/.  You may redistribute this article for
noncommercial purposes, with this notice attached.

Goto table of contents


==========================================================================

                              CORRESPONDENCE


Ravel at Camphill
-----------------

Response to:  "On Forgetting to Wear Boots" (NF-117)
From:  David Plank (dgp@epix.net)

Steve,

Thanks so much for your article on Camphill at Copake.  I hope to retire
someday to live in such a community.  I'll never forget an evening there
when Richard Goode played Ravel in a way that enlivened the music and the
audience like I've never experienced anywhere else ... in space or time.

Regards,

David


Don't Mistake Power for God
---------------------------

Response to:  "Response to Goldhaber and Wishard" (NF-117)
From:  Dale Lehman (Lehman_D@fortlewis.edu)

The more Kevin Kelly explains himself, the more I become bothered.  He
claims that his point is that we should acknowledge our "godhood" and not
deny it -- and that wise use of our power is a daunting and frightening
task.  I agree with the latter part of the statement but I am deeply
disturbed by the acknowledgment of our "godhood."  Why elevate power (and
potential reckless power) to the status of "godhood?"  I think the
characterization reveals a fundamental way of looking at human existence
that differs from my own.  Yes we have power.  Yes we can now influence
evolution and life on this planet to extents never possible before.  Yes
we should not deny this fact but recognize it and learn how to act under
such circumstances.

But power should not be mistaken for god.  I have no particular religious
convictions, but I think it is unfortunate that the societal value that
Kevin's statement reflects is that power is good and power makes some
people more worthy than others.  Isn't that part of the problem?

Dale Lehman


Animal Cruelty Is Linked to Violence among Humans
-------------------------------------------------

Response to:  "How Important Is Animal Suffering?" (NF-117)
From:  David Miller (dmiller@post03.curry.edu)

Hi, Steve --

Phil Walsh might be interested in some research conducted and promoted by
the Humane Society of the United States, on the connection between cruelty
to animals and violence toward other human beings. I understand that law
enforcement personnel around the country are taking this connection
seriously. The URL for the Humane Society's "First Strike Campaign" is:

   http://www.hsus.org/firststrike/index.html

To quote from their Introduction:

   Over the last 25 years, many studies in psychology, sociology and
   criminology have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have
   childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal
   cruelty.  The FBI has recognized this connection since the 1970s, when
   its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had, as
   children, killed or tortured animals.

   Far more prevalent, animal cruelty is frequently an indicator in cases
   of domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse. In response to
   recent studies indicating a strong correlation between animal abuse and
   family violence, communities across the United States are taking animal
   abuse seriously and developing innovative programs designed to provide
   early identification and intervention for violent perpetrators.

So, even if one professes that the suffering of (other!) animals is, of
itself, less important than that of humans, the connection is worth taking
seriously.

Thanks,

David Miller
Boston, Mass.


Sources for Organic Meats
-------------------------

Response to:  "How Important Is Animal Suffering?" (NF-117)
From:  Phil Walsh (philw@microware.com)

My post regarding factory farms and suffering was so poorly written that
it almost completely obscures my beliefs.

Rather than trying to salvage that post, I'd just like to note that I
whole-heartedly agree with the gist of what Lowell Monke and Douglas Sloan
had to say about factory farms, and for anyone interested in alternative
sources of meat I offer this link to the "Iowa Family Farm Meats
Directory", a compendium of family farms that practice organic, chemical-
free, and/or free-range animal husbandry:

   http://www2.state.ia.us/agriculture/meatdirectory1.htm.

Phil Walsh
Des Moines, Iowa

Goto table of contents


==========================================================================

                       ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RESOURCES


Two Technology-criticism Web Sites
----------------------------------

NetFuture reader Hans Talmon has put together a remarkable collection of
links to a stimulating array of essays, articles, and text excerpts -- all
under the heading "Social Criticism Review" (www.socialcritic.org).  There
are numerous subheadings dealing with various aspects of technical society
and alienation, environmental crisis, moral crisis, and the restoration of
community.  The selection of material is stunning, quickly surveyable, and
-- unless time is an infinite resource for you -- a bit overwhelming in
its richness.

Jerry McCarthy's Luddite Reader web site (www.ludditereader.com) is less
extensive, less buttoned down, and at times a little weird.  Next time
someone calls you a Luddite, check it out.

Goto table of contents


==========================================================================

                          ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER

Copyright 2001 by The Nature Institute.  You may redistribute this
newsletter for noncommercial purposes.  You may also redistribute
individual articles in their entirety, provided the NetFuture url and this
paragraph are attached.

NetFuture is supported by freely given reader contributions, and could not
survive without them.  For details and special offers, see
http://netfuture.org/support.html .

Current and past issues of NetFuture are available on the Web:

    http://netfuture.org/

To subscribe or unsubscribe to NetFuture:
    http://netfuture.org/subscribe.html.

Steve Talbott :: NetFuture #118 :: March 1, 2001

Goto table of contents