Response to Christine's Questions

Question 2: As I read Hot, Flat, and Crowded I feel a sense of data suffocation: there are literally too many facts, authorities, statistics, anecdotes, and connections for me to process. How does this method of data-dumping and information-overload help and/or hurt Friedman's ethos? Provide an example from the book to support your argument.

Response: Reading this text was much like a rollercoaster ride with climactic rises, dips, turns, dizzying drops and a deep breath of relief at the end. Following the text a read of the acknowledgements gives a strong indication of the means by which Friedman was able to present so much information in such a compact volume. It seems that this is a book meant to be consumed in small doses, the information reflected upon, before the reader goes back for more.

Until I heard Dr. Coffey, I did not share Friedman's final optimism, with the thinking that, in light of the data presented, the future would probably be very dark, if there would be a future at all. I had gravitated toward the pessimism of Mike Davis (Ecology of Fear), whom Friedman cites, and Alan Weisman (The World Without Us). However, Dr. Coffey, while acknowledging the climatological difficulties we face, presented solid evidence that we have the potential for continuation in a sustainable manner, countering the pessimism in favor of mild optimism.


Question 4: Based on Dr. Coffey's talk and Friedman's scary statistics on global warming . . . I am pretty certain that we are doomed. but, I was given some hope by two things: Dr. Coffey's faith in our ability to "leapfrog" with new technology and cleaner alternatives and the suggestion that scientists and the media have "interfaces" that can mediate information and make for a better informed public. . . . .

Response: A letter to Donella Meadows, whose eulogy is printed at the end of the text (411-412):

Dear Dr. Meadows,

For years I read your columns in Catalyst, alternating between hope and despair at what humans, particularly in the developed portions of the world, had accomplished in despoiling the earth, especially in developing nations and some sections of the US, in the name of progress and economic gain.

In the early 1990s, the monthly published "If the World were 100 People," which put the global village in perspective. You indicated that we all are neighbors and must acknowledge that fact and behave accordingly. The village is comprised of a population where some have much and others virtually nothing. We are diverse, and yet have so much in common. If we are to continue the village, we must take care of each other and make sure all have what we need to survive and thrive, including clean, safe water.

You later updated the message in your "State of the Village Report," expanding the village to 1000 people, showing a declining woodland, growing wasteland, increasing pollution from human actions and the perils of nuclear weaponry and waste. The message took on great urgency, but left room for mitigation, if and only if, we of the village would heed the wisdom of the responsiblity of caring sustainably for each other and for the village.

After depending on your wisdom for the years your column ran, I still mourn your passing.

In pacem,
Linda


Reference:

http://catalystmagazine.net/
http://www.100people.org/
http://www.sustainer.org/