Thursday, April 5, 2012

Crisis of civilization?

From a different perspective, Walter Mead addresses some of the same concerns of Dylan.


Dylan Wulderk said...

This sort of thing interests me to no end. I'm reading the article that came before this as I have time throughout the day. I have a feeling I'll have comments on this haha.

Dylan Wulderk said...

OK. After reading the main article and this one, I've got a few points to make:

1) I agree with his main article for the most part. Although I think the idea of liberal intellectuals dictating what society should do can be turned right on the head of the right, who rely on their own intellectuals to say that liberal intellectuals are wrong, and then espouse the visions of their conservative and libertarian intellectuals as the true way. Very contradictory and I'm not sure they know it. Mead failed to make that point, as I feel many others do.

2) Continuing on the paranoia theme I've got going in my defense of the electoral college, I can't help but worry that the computer-driven system we live in is the most fragile of any we've ever had. It's the current answer, but the end of it will be the end of society as we know it (not total hyperbole). One EPG couldn't kill every person who produced products and services in the past instantly. It can destroy the computer-based production and service system we're trending towards. Maybe people haven't noticed yet, but I like stability. I refuse to advocate for a system built on thin ice.

3) He's right. I'm not defending the blue system. I think it worked in its time (largely because of the financial situation we were in because anyone who could even potentially be seen as a competitor had been bombed into oblivion and were forced to rebuild before they could build), but that it doesn't work now. I don't think the right's response to it is correct either, though. I think (as we talked about in the beginning of the semester) we need a new system. I applaud Hayward (and the other gentleman whose name is currently escaping me)for trying to think outside the box, but I think they're focusing in the wrong place.

4) My solution? Find a new box. The question isn't which version is better and which components of each need to be altered, but what are our common goals and what are our most basic problems with the other side. It's a more basic discussion than the one that's currently out there. Instead of discussing which we should do, the question should be "Should we do these at all?"

And that's why I'm stuck and I don't have an answer right now.

5) Also, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I really enjoyed Mead's discussion of this in both the articles and I had no idea about it before now.

The other article: