PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet, 5 November 1999
------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Writing in the journal Nature,
Arthur C Clarke says that alien
civilisations should welcome the
"annihilation" of the human race.
He thinks that extra-terrestrial
onlookers will be glad that our
mishandling of technology may destroy us
before we can cause havoc
on a galactic scale."
-- BBC, 4
November 1999
(1) AGAINST THE APOCALYPSE: THE FUTURE IS OPEN - NOT DOOMED
Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
(2) TORINO SCALE: DISASTER YARDSTICK IN SEARCH OF A ROLE
Explorezone, 4 November 1999
(3) A SURPRISE NOVEMBER METEOR SHOWER
NASA Science News <expressnews@sslab.msfc.nasa.gov>
(4) A STORM OF LEONID LESSON PLANS
NASA Science News <expressnews@sslab.msfc.nasa.gov>
(5) SEISMIC INTERPRETATION OF CIRCULAR GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES
S.A. Stewart, AMERADA HESS LTD
(6) MUNAR MULTIRING BASINS & THE CRATERING PROCESS
M.A. Wieczorek & R.J. Phillips, WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY
(7) IMPACT CRATERS OF NORTHERN VENUS
A.T. Basilevsky et al., VERNADSKY INSTITUTE
(8) INTERNAL CRATER MODIFICATION ON VENUS
R.W. Wichman, ST JOHNS UNIVERSITY
(9) AND FINALLY.....THE WORLD’S GREATEST DOOMSDAY PROPHETS
BBC, Online News, 4 November 1999
=================
(1) AGAINST THE APOCALYPSE: THE FUTURE IS OPEN - NOT DOOMED
From Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
It is not the most pleasant of tasks to moderate an international
network that deals primarily with natural catastrophes and their
dreadful effects - past, present and future. Yet a better
understanding
of our cosmic environment and the various ways it has repeatedly
punctuated life on Earth is a vital prerequisite for any
preventive and
protective measures.
During the last twenty years or so, we have become aware of the
disastrous history of life on Earth. While the gloomy knowledge
about
our *past* has begun to supplant the over-optimistic belief of
Darwin
and his followers in uninterrupted and ever-lasting progress,
there is
no reason to propound that the *future* will be, inevitably, as
bleak
as the past. Regardless of how appalling past disasters may have
been, the future is not a sealed book written in the stars.
As a hopeful person, it is my firm belief that we have both the
intellectual ability and the technological skills to intervene in
the
course of nature and prevent the past from repeating itself.
Whether or
not we rise to the cosmic challenge is in our power - and in our
power only. This is a sanguine look at our current situation and
the
existing potential for the future of human evolution.
This is also an inspiring view that used to be shared by a
majority of
scientists and enlightend people around the world. In recent
years,
however, more and more thinkers have started to make ghastly
predictions of the future. In their apocalyptic prophecies they
often
correspond to the rise of religious mellennialism.
In item (9) of today’s digest, I have included a report by
the BBC
(4/11/99) about a new book by "some of the world's greatest
thinkers
[who] paint a dismal picture for the inhabitants of Earth in the
next
millennium." My friend Sir Arthur is even quoted as saying
we should
"welcome the ‘annihilation’ of the human
race."
How can we explain this sudden outbreak of PMT [Pre-Millennium
Tension]
among our brightest thinkers? These writers are not normally
known for
their melancholy or portentous view of the world. And yet, it is
rather distressing to see that such influential authors have
given in
to the populist fashion of pessimism.
From a historical perspective, these kind of doom and gloom
predictions
are as old as civilisation. After all, pessimism has always been
particularly prevalent in times of crisis and transition. When
the
traditional view of the world loses its hold and a new paradigm
has not
yet fully emerged, trepidation and cynicism becomes widespread.
Undoubtedly, we find ourselves in such a state of things. But do
we
really need to repeat, yet again, the follies of past
hopelessness?
I belief in what philosophers have called 'Meliorism', or the
belief
that though a perfect state on Earth will never be attainable, we
can
still safeguard and improve the conditions of life on Earth.
Leibniz
may have been wrong when he claimed that this is the best of all
possible worlds. But it certainly is the best of all the worlds
we know
of and certainly worth of our protection.
Benny J Peiser
================
(2)TORINO SCALE: DISASTER YARDSTICK IN SEARCH OF A ROLE
From Explorezone, 4 November 1999
http://explorezone.com/archives/99_11/04_torino_scale.htm
By Robert Roy Britt, explorezone.com
When the Torino Impact Hazard Scale was unveiled, it was highly
touted
as a comprehensive measure of the risk of an asteroid colliding
with
Earth. Three months later, the scale has seen little use.
That suits its creator just fine.
In fact, MIT professor Richard Binzel says the less we hear about
the
Torino Scale the better -- it means there are no known
asteroids
heading toward Earth.
The scale uses numbers and colors to calculate the estimated risk
of an
asteroid hitting our planet. A Zero or 1 on the scale indicates a
low
probability that a particular rock from space will hit Earth; a
10 on
the scale is a near-promise of global catastrophe.
Meanwhile, since its inception in June, questions have arisen
about the
effectiveness of Binzel's scale, initially billed as a Richter
scale
for asteroids. Critics are also scratching their heads over how
the
scale came to be accepted by the scientists and organizations
responsible for keeping track of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs).
NEOs are Sun-circling comets and asteroids -- chunks of rock and
iron
-- that spend some portion of their time relatively near our
planet,
occasionally developing a gravitational propensity for wreaking a
little
terrestrial havoc. Many scientists believe a large asteroid was
responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs.
Brain Marsden, director of the Minor Planet Center, told
explorezone.com that the Torino Scale is "largely
irrelevant," charging
that it does little to inform the public and is an
oversimplification
for serious researchers. He is also baffled over how the scale
was
loosely adopted by the International Astronomical Union, the
organizing
body that oversees the Minor Planet Center, a clearinghouse for
all
such information.
While the Torino Scale's official status within the IAU is
unclear,
most NEO researchers say it has the potential to be useful, even
if
they have concerns about its adoption.
The impact of Deep Impact
While few prominent scientists in the NEO community share
Marsden's
highly critical view, he is a key player in the search for space
rocks.
Besides directing the Minor Planet Center, he is known for having
triggered the first widespread fears of a so-called Deep Impact
with
his announcement in March 1998 that asteroid 1997 XF11 could
strike the
Earth.
The risk for XF11 was subsequently found to be Zero, after fresh
data
was studied. Many NEO researchers argue that the public was
needlessly
alarmed -- it was the very next day that the new calculations put
the
threat to rest.
"A number of people in the NEO community have issue with the
way Brian
handles observations and orbital predictions," said Kelly
Beatty,
senior editor of Sky & Telescope magazine and a contributor
to the
development of the Torino Scale.
But Marsden says the announcement of XF11 was the very thing that
brought out the additional data that eliminated the threat. In
the end,
he says, the publicity helped improve NEO research. To be sure,
XF11
was a catalyst for scientific discourse that eventually
contributed to
the adoption of the very Torino Scale that Marsden criticizes.
The publicity surrounding XF11, and the confusion generated in
the
scientist-journalist-public communication pipeline, were key
events
that encouraged the NEO community to support Binzel's Torino
Scale..
It's just a tool
Binzel characterizes the colorful, numbered chart as a useful
tool that
puts the vast majority of possibly threatening asteroids in
Category
Zero, which he says appropriately downplays the public perception
of
any minuscule threat.
On the Torino Scale, the Zero category states the likelihood of a
collision is "well below the chance that a random object of
the same
size will strike the Earth within the next few decades."
(The
implication being that there is always a chance we will be
sucker-punched by an asteroid that has not yet been discovered.)
"We do not have to create pubic alarm every time we discover
an object
that has the most remote chance of striking Earth," Binzel
told
explorezone.com in a telephone interview. Yet he firmly agrees
with
Marsden that objects falling into the Zero category need further
attention. This category was not designed to remove objects from
the
scientists' mental radar, Binzel says, but rather to earmark them
for
more study. If further observations warrant, an object can move
upward on the scale accordingly.
Marsden, however, says the scale's ambiguity makes it difficult
to
decide where an object belongs, adding that the scale does not
properly
consider objects that may present a threat many decades into the
future
and therefore require significant additional observations.
Further, as Marsden sees the system, most NEOs won't reach level
1 or
higher until a second round of calculations is made. But if
a
particular NEO is buried in the catch-all Zero category, it's
orbital
calculations are not in need of official IAU peer review, as
defined by
the Torino Scale's guidelines. Therefore, researchers are free to
publicize their findings, as has been done in at least one case
since
the Torino Scale went into effect, of what everyone would agree
is an
object with a relatively low-level threat.
On the other hand, calculations of an NEO that merits a ranking
of 1 or
higher are supposed to be reviewed by the IAU prior to being
published.
Marsden argues that the calculations do not need reviewing, as
prior
announcements in the field have not been faulty because of any
miscalculations.
Marsden says pervious NEO announcements, regardless of their
public
effect, have increased awareness within the NEO community of the
need
to use all possible means to make additional calculations once an
object has been discovered.
"The public is more of a problem," Marsden says,
"because they have
unfortunately received the messages that astronomers make
mistakes in
their calculations (which is not true) and that they fight with
each
other (which is)."
Binzel approaches his hazard scale from a whole different
trajectory,
stressing that there are other means of communication between
scientists. The Torino Scale is not intended to facilitate that
process,
he says, but rather to communicate between scientists and the
public.
Those outside the NEO community, he points out, cannot be
expected to
comprehend the complexity of the individual calculations. Still,
the
scale's apparent adoption by the IAU means researchers do have to
consider it.
"So I think the disagreement is a question of what language
we use,
what method we use to draw attention in the scientific community
to an
object that urgently needs follow-up measurements," Binzel
said.
Estimating the danger
An asteroid capable of global disaster would have to be more than
a
quarter-mile wide. It would rock the planet with earthquakes and
volcanoes and raise a cloud of dust that would darken the skies
for
months, destroying agriculture and, possibly, many species of
plants
and animals. Asteroids that large strike Earth only once every
1,000
centuries on average, NASA officials say. Smaller asteroids that
are
believed to strike Earth every 1,000 to 10,000 years could
destroy a
city or cause devastating tsunamis.
There are many variables that go into gauging asteroid risk,
including
the object's current position, movement, mass, and proximity to
other
objects in the solar system. The biggest challenge for
researchers is
calculating possible orbital perturbations that can, down the
road, set
an NEO on a new and potentially dangerous course.
A series of such gravitational tugs -- from Earth, Jupiter or
some
other body -- can cause an asteroid to make a close pass in, say
20
years, then be sucked into a different orbit and make an even
closer
pass many decades later.
All these calculations result in impact probabilities that are
typically very small, on the order of 1 chance in a hundred
million or
less. Nonetheless, these teensy odds of doom have made big
headlines.
As recently as April of this year, asteroid 1999 AN10 found its
way
into major American newspapers after researchers in Italy
calculated
that it had a 1-in-a-billion chance of bothering us in 2039.
Follow-up
observations eliminated the threat.
There are some 800 known Near-Earth Asteroids, most of which pose
no
danger (comets are tallied separately). Of the 800, nearly 200
have
been identified as Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs), which
might
come within 5 million miles of Earth in the future. Most of these
pose
no real threat, but a few have the potential of one day being
perturbed
into a dangerous orbit.
The Byzantine politics of science
Much of Marsden's criticism of the Torino Scale is political in
nature.
He accuses officials of holding "secret" meetings about
the idea and
giving it a tacit nod without presenting it to the proper
committees.
"The next thing that happened," Marsden says,
"after secret and minimal
discussion by two or three nonmembers, was the NASA/MIT press
release
that claimed… that the IAU had adopted it. The actual IAU
leadership
position was that, OK, it is a 'tool' that can be used, amended
or
discarded as appropriate. I am utterly amazed at statements from
some
of the NASA leadership to the effect that the scale is the
greatest
thing since sliced whatever."
In the original press release, Carl Pilcher, science director for
solar
system exploration in NASA's Office of Space Science, called the
scale "a major advance in our ability to explain the hazard
proposed
by a particular NEO."
Binzel agrees that the process of approval did not strictly
follow IAU
guidelines, and that "where it is within the IAU is a fuzzy
thing." But
he points out that every effort was made to get the wording
correct,
and the IAU General Secretary approved the press releases.
Finding support
Among researchers, these processes have not helped to buoy
support for
the Torino Scale as much as a more formal approach might have.
At Liverpool John Moores University, Dr. Benny Peiser moderates
an
often controversial but widely read scholarly electronic
newsletter.
Peiser's CCNet covers all aspects of what the professor [sic]
calls
neocatastrophism. Daily, asteroids and the threat of impact
dominate
the articles, news items, open thoughts and sometimes-biting
criticisms.
Peiser, who supports the Torino Scale but expects it will need to
evolve, says the controversy stems in part from the fact that it
did
not go through a proper review process. He says the details for
refining the scale were entrusted to the IAU and the scientific
committee at a June IMPACT meeting in Torino, Italy, where the
scale
was presented and approved (in principle, he notes).
"Given that significant objections in addition to relevant
suggestions
for improvement were made public at the IMPACT meeting, the
failure
to submit the Torino Scale for scientific review appears to have
had a
detrimental effect," Peiser told explorezone.com.
Torino the teenager
In talking with several experts, it becomes clear that the Torino
Scale
is like a typical teenager: It has not yet staked out who or what
it
really is, or where it is going. But most NEO researchers
expressed
optimism that the scale -- or some grown-up version of it -- will
stick.
It's exact role, however, remains to be determined. Peiser points
out
that the most important aspect surrounding a potentially
hazardous
asteroid is data, and more of it, which is the only way to
determine or
eliminate the ultimate threat.
"The Torino Scale was, I guess, mainly created as a sedative
for the
general public," Peiser said.
Meanwhile, Binzel says the scale's real intention is as a tool
for
journalists. While this was not the focus of press releases
regarding
the scale, Binzel did seek input on the idea from three science
journalists prior to presenting the revised version in Italy (a
previous
version in 1995 was never adopted).
Beatty, the Sky & Telescope editor, was one of those
contributors, and
he says Binzel's first challenge is to get the astronomical
community
to adopt the scale, and then the journalists will follow. Beatty
said
some sort of resolution might come at an IAU meeting scheduled
for
August.
"Assuming the astronomical community gets behind it, then it
creates a
metric that journalists can rely on," Beatty said. "My
take is that
this is version 1.0 of this scale. I suspect that as our
knowledge
becomes more complete... we may find the scale defined
differently to
represent the hazards."
While willing to consider altered future versions, Binzel said,
"we
don't want to make changes and revisions that end up confusing
the
public. If it doesn't work in its test phase for the next several
years, we can think about ways to change it."
Meanwhile, out there in the grand void are a handful of comets
and
asteroids with our collective names etched all over them. Similar
objects have hit Earth before, others will arrive in the future.
While
pure chance could cause such a catastrophe tomorrow, odds are
such
a thing won't happen for a long, long time.
Providing this perspective -- in a simplified way to the general
public
-- is the primary purpose of the Torino Scale, Binzel said.
"If I tell
you an object is a 1 on a 10-point scale, where 10 is total
disaster,
immediately you know there is no major cause for public
concern." ez
Copyright 1999, Explorezone
=================
(3) A SURPRISE NOVEMBER METEOR SHOWER
From NASA Science News <expressnews@sslab.msfc.nasa.gov>
NASA Space Science News for November 5, 1999
A Surprise November Meteor Shower? On November 11, 1999 Earth
will pass
close to the orbit of newly-discovered Comet LINEAR C/1999J3. The
result could be a new meteor shower -- the Linearids. This
article
includes tips for visual and ham radio observing. FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast05nov99_1.htm
=====================
(4) A STORM OF LEONID LESSON PLANS
From NASA Science News <expressnews@sslab.msfc.nasa.gov>
NASA Space Science News for November 4, 1999
This week's episode of Thursday's Classroom is the second in a
series
about the Leonid meteor shower, expected to strike on November
18,
1999. Kid's stories examine the history of the Leonids and the
discovery of this shower in 1833. Activities include
"Time Travel
Postcards" (students pretend that they just saw the 1833
meteor storm,
and write postcards to kids in 1999 describing the event),
"Speeding in
Space" (a high-velocity math exercise), "The Great
Leonid Meteor Play",
and more! VISIT
http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com
===============
(5) SEISMIC INTERPRETATION OF CIRCULAR GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES
S.A. Stewart: Seismic interpretation of circular geological
structures.
PETROLEUM GEOSCIENCE, 1999, Vol.5, No.3, pp.273-285
AMERADA HESS LTD,33 GROSVENOR PL,LONDON SW1X 7HY,ENGLAND
3D seismic data provide images of geological features which are
approximately circular in plan view but whose shape and origin
may not
be possible to constrain using 2D seismic data. As 3D seismic
data
become more commonly employed in hydrocarbon exploration, the
number of
demonstrably 'circular' structures will increase. At least ten
different geological processes can result in seismically
resolvable
'circular' structures in sedimentary basins. These include
salt/shale
diapirs, salt withdrawal basins, polygonal fault blocks,
dissolution
collapse hollows, breccia pipes, calderas, gas pockmarks,
bioherms,
sand volcanoes, pull-aparts, impact craters and tectonic folds.
Geometrical and geological criteria for each are summarized to
facilitate identification of such features should they be
encountered
in the course of a 3D seismic interpretation. Certain types of
geological feature have distinctive properties, others are less
straightforward to recognize on the basis of individual criteria.
Copyright 1999, Institute for Scientific Information Inc.
=============
(6) MUNAR MULTIRING BASINS & THE CRATERING PROCESS
M.A. Wieczorek*) & R.J. Phillips: Lunar multiring basins and
the
cratering process. ICARUS, 1999, Vol.139, No.2, pp.246-259
*) WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY,DEPT EARTH & PLANETARY SCI,1
BROOKINGS DR,BOX
1169,ST LOUIS,MO,63130
Numerous studies of the lunar gravity field have concluded that
the
lunar Moho is substantially uplifted beneath the young multiring
basins. This uplift is presumably due to the excavation of large
quantities of crustal material during the cratering process and
subsequent rebound of the impact basin floor. Using a new
dual-layered
crustal thickness model of the Moon, the excavation cavities of
some
nearside multiring basins (Grimaldi and larger, and younger than
Tranquillitatis) were reconstructed by restoring the uplifted
Moho to
its preimpact location. The farside South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin
was
also considered due to its importance in deciphering lunar
evolution.
Restoring the Moho to its preimpact position beneath these basins
resulted in a roughly parabolic depression from which the depth
and
diameter of the excavation cavity could be determined. Using
these
reconstructed excavation cavities, the basin-forming process was
investigated. Excavation cavity diameters were generally found to
be on
the small side of most previous estimates (for Orientale the
modeled
excavation cavity lies within the Inner Rook Ring). Additionally,
with
the exception of the three largest basins (Serenitatis, Imbrium,
and
South Pole-Aitken) the depth/diameter ratios of the excavation
cavities
were found to be 0.115 @ 0.005, a value consistent with
theoretical and
experimental results for impact craters orders of magnitude
smaller in
size. The three largest basins, however, appear to have
significantly
shallower depths of excavation compared to this trend. It is
possible
that this may reflect a different physical process of crater
formation
(e.g., nonproportional scaling), special impact conditions, or
postimpact modification processes. The crustal thickness model
also
shows that each basin is surrounded by an annulus of thickened
crust.
We interpret this thickened crust as representing thick basin
ejecta
deposits, and we show that the radial variation in the thickness
of
these deposits is consistent with scaling laws obtained from
small-scale experimental studies. If multiring basins ever
possessed a
terraced main crater rim, this terraced zone may be presently
unrecognizable at the surface due to the emplacement of ejecta
deposits
that exceed a few kilometers in thickness exterior to the
excavation
cavity rim. We also show that the interiors of many basins were
superisostatic before mare volcanism commenced. Those basins that
were
closest to approaching a premare isostatic state lie close to or
within
an anomalous geochemical province rich in heat-producing
elements. (C)
1999 Academic Press.
=============
(7) IMPACT CRATERS OF NORTHERN VENUS
A.T. Basilevsky*), J.W. Head, M.A. Ivanov, V.P. Kryuchkov: Impact
craters on geologic units of northern Venus: Implications for the
duration of the transition from tessera to regional plains.
GEOPHYSICAL
RESEARCH LETTERS, 1999, Vol.26, No.16, pp.2593-2596
*) VERNADSKY INST,KOSYGIN ST 19,MOSCOW 117975,RUSSIA
Using Magellan SAR images and the Schaber el al, [1998] crater
data
base we examined impact craters in the area north of 35 degrees N
and
determined the geologic units on which they are superposed. The
crater
density of the regional plains with wrinkle ridges (Pwr) was
found to
be very close to the global average and thus the mean surface age
of
the plains is close to the mean surface age of the planet (T).
About 80
to 97% of the craters superposed on a composite unit that
includes
materials of Tessera terrain (Tt), Densely fractured plains
(Pdf),
Fractured and ridged plains (Pfr), and Fracture Belts (FB), also
postdate the regional plains. Thus, the time interval between the
formation of these older units and emplacement of the regional
plains
(Delta T) should be geologically short, from a few percent to
about 20%
of T, or approximately 40 to 150 m.y. This means that in the area
under
study, volcanic and tectonic activity in the beginning of the
morphologically recognizable part of the geologic history of
Venus
(about the last 750 m.y.) was much more active than in the
subsequent
time. Copyright 1999, Institute for Scientific Information Inc.
===========
(8) INTERNAL CRATER MODIFICATION ON VENUS
R.W. Wichman: Internal crater modification on Venus: Recognizing
crater-centered volcanism by changes in floor morphometry and
floor
brightness. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS, 1999,
Vol.104,
No.E9, pp.21957-21977
*) ST JOHNS UNIVERSITY,DEPT GEOL,COLLEGEVILLE,MN,56321
Bright-floored and dark-floored craters on Venus show systematic
differences in their size, distribution and apparent
modification.
Bright-floored craters exhibit the following characteristics: an
interior radar brightness comparable to the youngest craters on
Venus,
a tendency toward smaller crater diameters, and a broad range of
crater
elevations. In contrast, the dark-floored craters are darker than
pristine craters on Venus, are typically much larger, and
preferentially occur at lower elevations. They also have larger
floors
than pristine craters of the same size and are similar in many
respects
to floor-fractured craters on Venus. Of the four proposed origins
for
dark crater floors, these observations are most consistent with
crater-centered volcanism. Surface weathering or eolian
deposition may
contribute to floor darkening in some cases, but neither of these
mechanisms, nor impact melts, can independently explain the full
range
of observed modifications. Based on the measurements of this
study,
volcanism has affected at least 6-13% of the impact craters on
Venus.
The estimated lava fill thicknesses are of the order of 100-500
m.
Thus, if these flows are representative of eruptions elsewhere in
the
Venusian lowlands, the implied average flux of plains-forming
volcanism on Venus for the last 300 m.y. is similar to 0.01-
0.02 km(3)/yr. Copyright 1999, Institute for Scientific
Information
Inc.
============
(9) AND FINALLY.....THE WORLD’S GREATEST DOOMSDAY PROPHETS
From the BBC, Online News, 4 November 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_504000/504682.stm
The future's not all bright
Visions of the future from some of the world's greatest thinkers
paint
a dismal picture for the inhabitants of Earth in the next
millennium,
with humans vying for supremacy with a new species of intelligent
being.
Predictions, a new book including contributions from such
esteemed
visionaries as sci-fi writer Arthur C Clarke and economist JK
Galbraith, suggests that within two decades a new life form will
have
evolved from artificially intelligent machines.
This development will occur "far more rapidly than biology
will ever
permit," reckons Clarke, author of 2001.
With independent-minded machines threatening to leave us behind,
the
book predicts that humans will turn to genetics and computer
implants
in a bid to compete.
Geneticist Dr French Anderson fears that, not content with curing
all
disease using gene-based treatments, people in the next
millennium will
attempt to "improve" themselves and their children.
"Eugenics [might] be practised on a scale far larger than
any
'selective breeding' policy could accomplish."
The end of sex
Couples will no longer have sex to reproduce, with individuals
relying
on sperm and egg banks instead.
Cybernetics expert Kevin Warwick, who already has a chip in his
arm to
remotely operate doors and switch on his computer, predicts that
similar implants will become commonplace.
The time may come when such devices will make speech obsolete,
with
humans communicating to each other telepathically.
Such developments could pose a real threat to our established
notions
of who we are.
"A human brain is a stand-alone entity, guaranteeing a
unique human
identity," Warwick said. "But link a human brain via
the internet to
other brains, both human and machine, and what of the individual
then?"
The anthology of forecasts by 30 noted thinkers - including
Umberto Eco
and Richard Dawkins - does envisage exciting leaps forward in
space
travel.
Prince in space
Arthur C Clarke even predicts that Prince Harry, youngest son of
the
Prince of Wales, will be the first royal to holiday among the
stars.
He also says that by 2057, a century after Sputnik was launched,
man
will stand on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
However, many of the great minds quizzed were less than positive
about
the prospects for the future.
British scientist Susan Greenfield thinks the attention span of
humans
will be eroded to the point where we will become a "society
of
restless, unimaginative individuals".
American feminist and historian Elaine Showalter suggests that
future
generations will be dogged by "new paranoias, new hysterias,
new
conspiracy theories and new imaginary diseases".
Sian Griffith, the Times Higher Education Supplement journalist
who
edited Predictions, said lessons should be learned from the
prophesies.
"I get the sense from these predictions that there is a
limited time
span for human beings unless we change."
"There's a sense that we'll be struggling all the time,
trying to do
new things, but with a sense of disaster looming."
Humans: A lethal mutation
Linguist Noam Chomsky describes the human race as a "lethal
mutation",
acquiring in an evolutionary heartbeat the capacity to destroy
ourselves and the other life forms which share our planet.
"Perhaps it will find ways to contain its destructive
impulses. A
rational Martian spectator might not be sanguine about the
prospects."
Writing in the journal Nature, Arthur C Clarke says that alien
civilisations should welcome the "annihilation" of the
human race.
He thinks that extra-terrestrial onlookers will be glad that our
mishandling of technology may destroy us before we can cause
havoc on a
galactic scale.
Copyright 1999, BBC
----------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
----------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser < b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use only. The attached information may not be copied
or
reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the
copyright holders. The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from
February 1997 on, can be found at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html