The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman
Friedman writes a foreign-affairs for the NY Times, and I've always found his work fresh and well-written. This book is about globalization, the rise of India and China into a "flattened," digital world/market, and what America needs to do to keep up. He hits on a number of different points--perhaps this book's biggest flaw is that it's too broad--but what fascinated me the most was the future of renewable energy and what it can do to help America keep up in this growingly competitive economy. He argues, and I agree, that the next president needs to initiate a project much like the Manhatten or Apollo project to develop efficient, renwable energy that can begin to replace our current oil/coal energy sources. The benefits of this project would be so far-reaching that I'm surprised no politician has really jumped onto it. Besides the obvious environmental benefits that would please the left, making America independent from oil would be huge military asset, as it drains the money flow away from rogue-oil states like Iran and Venezuela. And economically, it would not only put America at the forefront of what's becoming the next big market, but it would also ease the growing competition for oil amongst states like India and China. Now obviously, this will take years and billions, probably trillions, of dollars, but rather than talking about "uniting," this would actually be a cause most Americans could unite behind. Also, unlike the Apollo project, the finished product--efficient, renewable energy--will not be just a figurehead moment but a utility that can produce jobs and a more robust economy. Friedman has another book coming out this summer about green technology, and I'm excited to see what he says.
People of Paradox, by Terryl Givens
Probably one of the best Mormon studies books I've read, Givens traces four different "paradoxes" or tensions in Mormon belief that forms the groundwork of Mormon arts and letters. Some of the most insightful "paradox" chapters were: the tension between individual knowledge and hierarchal authority, "certainty" and eternal progress/learning, and the conceptual collapse between what is spiritual and temporal. Apart from these opening arguments, I really enjoyed his thoughts on past and present Mormon intellectualism and his perspective on Mormon literature and cinema. While not directly apologetic, Givens makes a strong case for our unique Mormonism was during its inception and how complex its doctrines and beliefs truly are. After reading this book, I don't know how anyone could pass us off as a "cult" or a bunch of brain-washed sycophants. More and more, smart scholarship like this forces religious scholars and laypeople alike to recognize that the LDS church is not only a growing church, but a dynamic and vital one as well. And to an LDS audience, it not only gives insights into our past and present culture, but it reminds us the importance that the arts should play in our spiritual lives. I never would've guessed before this book that Brigham Young not only commissioned a theater to be the first building constructed in the valley after the temple, but that he was even an actor in a number of Nauvoo productions. Overall, it is a great addition to understanding the beautiful mosaic of Mormonism.
5 comments:
Dahlin
While I agree with some of the premise of some of your comments on Friedman's book, unless we can come up with a complete new form of renewable energy, none of the current forms will produce enough energy to replace our current energy output. I am a big fan of renewable energy, hydroelectric being the best, but I think that without something like nuclear energy to replace coal, oil and natural gas to produce electricity, we can not make up the difference with wind, solar, tidal or geothermal. Those are all good but from what I have heard from advocates and people from the Oregon Natural Resource Council, they can never replace all of our energy needs. Fussion anyone?
Scott,
Yeah, "fusion" has to be the new Holy Grail for nuclear physicists--though it probably always has been. You're right that renewable energy is not developed enough to really handle our energy needs now--that's why I think we've got to be making big investments now in 1) drastically improving current renewable methods, including making them more portable and 2) discovering new ways to produce energy. For instance, while wind power has its limits--not very efficient, tempermental, eyesore--I see solar power as being more useful if we can be move innovative about it. A "field" of solar panels won't be enough, but what if you were able to make it feasible to install solar panels on house roofs or the tops of skyscrapers? And what if we further developd the "electric car?" While you wouldn't be able to solve all your energy problems there (especially in Oregon!) you've created a useful supplement to at least ease the drain on pollutant coal and Middle Eastern oil. Another initiative--far off, expensive, but enticing none the less--is orbiting solar-panel satelites that "beam down" there energy. Current time and costs are around 20 years, $1 trillion dollars, but that is a huge step in an exciting direction . Plus, if we seriously invest now, who knows what scientists can cook up? I trust that with time, we'll be surprised by what can be discovered.
Dahlin,
I do believe that mankind can come up with more ideas and ways to solve problems than we can imagine. I am sure there is technology that will come on line that we can't even dream of now. I hope it happens and the sooner the better. I do think it is worth investing in. However, I am afraid that we are going to cripple the economy if we only pursue renewable energy now. That is why I am not opposed to more exploration and drilling of the mind boggling amount of oil resources that we now know about and the ones that are yet to be discovered. I remember when I was in high school, we were taught that oil supplies would completely run out in 20 to 30 years. Well, that was 30+ years ago and now they estimate hundreds of years in know reserves. That doesn't include what we don't know about.
With that said, I still think we need to develop alternative sources of energy. Ones that are cleaner, sustainable and produced completely in the US. I believe, however, that if we cripple our economy now with shortsighted policies on drilling, nuclear, coal and natural gas we will not have the resources to spend on developing those other options. I don't see many poor countries coming up with any good ideas. Too many people think that our economy will always be good. But could it be that our economy is good because we have always had affordable and dependable energy? If I were wanting to take down the American economy the first thing I would go after is energy producing facilities. There isn't a business today that can operate without a computer, one that requires electricity. That would be the most effective way to hurt us. And yet, in someways we are destroying our own energy industries by letting shortsighted policies drive up the cost and availability of our energy. When fish are more important that people and their needs, I have to wonder. Don't get me wrong. I think we should do all we can to protect our environment. I am all for any source of power that will keep our water and air clean. But thinking things out and not throwing the baby out with the bath water is wise too. For example, solar is a great way to produce clean energy says everyone. But I recently heard that almost all the solar collecting tubes, ones like Cathy's mom has on her house, are made in China and the production process is unbelievably bad for the environment. There is no way we would allow them to be produced here. Environmental groups would go crazy. Maybe they don't mind as long as it is not in by back yard. And every time I buy a cell phone they remind me not to throw my batteries away in the garbage because they are bad for the environment. Yet we want to build electric cars to save the environment from CO2 producing cars. I am not opposed to either of these things, but lets think about the consequences of our actions before we act. If we know what the consequences are and are willing to accept them, then fine, go for it. But we pushed corn based ethenol through Oregon's government last year and also through the US government without really discussing how much energy it took to produce, or would we use corn that had been used for food, or would our cars get worse gas mileage actually causing us to burn more gas than before? But we are not able to have open, rational debates when some people are so fanatical about their cause. I might not even disagree with them but I would like to have the debate.
That is much more long winded than anyone will want to read but it is fun for me. My dream for solving the energy problem is taking dirty water, splitting the oxygen and the hydrogen, burning the hydrogen and emitting water as the waste byproduct. Whoever can do that and make it affordable will make Bill Gates look like a bum.
Sorry for the many typos in that last posting. I will do a better job of editing next time.
Dallin, I just saw this post now and really enjoyed your review of Givens' book. Could I borrow it when we come to town next week? I haven't read much of his stuff outside a talk or two (and the PBS broadcast), but I'm fascinated with his thinking and approach to examining the gospel. Talk to you soon!
Post a Comment