• Goto NetFuture main page
  •                                  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.
    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
       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
    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
    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
    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.
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
                                  Langdon Winner
                                                          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:
    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
    Ravel at Camphill
    Response to:  "On Forgetting to Wear Boots" (NF-117)
    From:  David Plank (dgp@epix.net)
    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.
    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:
    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
    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:
    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:
    To subscribe or unsubscribe to NetFuture:
    Steve Talbott :: NetFuture #118 :: March 1, 2001
    Goto table of contents

  • Goto NetFuture main page