[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> discussion on www.edge.org about the world after 911

[David Hudson <dwh@snafu.de>]

Mark Stahlman wrote:

>Geert:
>
>> mark stahlman pointed me a debate between
> > edgy libertarian/nineties US tech intelligentsia
>> on john brockman's edge.org site:
>
>Hmmmm . . . perhaps a little CONTEXT would help . . . ?

Well, here's a bit, courtesy of Margaret Wertheim in the LA Weekly:

Scientists on the Edge
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/50/new-wertheim.shtml

As for who's there, she offers:

"A former associate of Andy Warhol, the flamboyant Brockman sensed early on the celebrity power of science. Warhol had the Factory, and Brockman, who was a frequent visitor in its latter years, has with his Edge site convened a kind of scientific equivalent, a 'place' where those at the cutting edge of science and technology can meet to throw around their latest and wildest ideas."

You might, as I did, scoff at that comparison at first, but on second glance, it makes a certain sort of sense. Warhol's Factory, after all, was anything but "a 'place' where those at the cutting edge of [art could] meet to throw around their latest and wildest ideas." Instead, the Factory was pretty much what the name implied: a production house pumping out product to further the brand "Andy Warhol."

John Brockman is a literary agent and many of the people on his "invite-only list" are clients or potential clients. So there you go.

That comparison fleshed out, though, it should be said that many of the contributions are intriguing, thought-provoking, etc., and Margaret Wertheim's shortish article is helpful not only for the context it provides but also for the digest of the sheer bulk of it all.

But while I agree with you, Mark, that there's more there there than "edgy libertarian/nineties US tech intelligentsia," I also couldn't help but share Geert's initial reaction once I clicked and saw all those old names. Post-9/11, they all seem so ancient and irrelevant. Or to put it another way, who cares what all these veteran cyberfreaks think about *anything* *now*?

And, still speaking personally, that wasn't my reaction at all when, say, the editors at The Guardian or The New Yorker, lunged for their Rolodexes immediately after the event and called on literary heavyweights, i.e., celebrities to come up with 800 words or so during those days when the running mantra was, "There are no words." I at least eagerly lapped up those words and never once thought of the likes of, oh, Ian McEwan, for example, as time-stamped, marked as belonging to an era suddenly long-gone. But who would think to call on, e.g., any one of the Dysons?

As it turns out, that rather unscientific sampling serves up a fine cross-sampling of the variety veteran cyberfreaks actually have to offer. Esther: the terrorists are Soviets redux; let's defeat them by investing. George: to hell with the airlines; pneumatic tubes are the future; Freeman: well, as Wertheim tells it:

"In one of the more frank commentaries I have read on the attacks anywhere, Dyson tells us that he can easily 'imagine the state of mind of the young men who so resolutely smashed those planes into the buildings. Almost I could have been one of them myself.'"

You've got to hand 'em this much: Irrelevant it ain't.

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold