***  Haus der Kulturen der Welt: Forum1 Archive  ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   [Date]: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 20:01:56 +0200
   [From]: "PEACE" <ami_iss@netvision.net.il>
     [To]: "Cultural Exchange via Internet" <forum1@hkw.kbx.de>
[Subject]: Re: [forum1] Re: structure in discussion

Hi Juan,
You are also right that there are plenty of catastrophes that can be
foreseen. Very probably, we are going to have water crises and
fossil fuel crises etc. over the next 50 years.  But you will have a
hard time predicting which of these will hit first and be relevant,
and whether any of them will be a "showstopper" - something with
a catastrophic effect. You don't know _which_ of the catastrophes
will really happen.

For example, Malthus predicted population explosion
would be a showstopper, but it did not happen. Not Yet.

There are numerous other such "obvious" predictions that will never happen.
There is also a whole list of really silly predictions by "experts:"

  The head of the American Association for the Adv. of Science
   predicted  ('proved') that man could never go to the moon.

   Several studies "proved" that the land of Palestine/Israel could
   not support a  population of more than 2-3 million in total.

   Surprise attacks are always surprising and never predicted, even
   when they are completely obvious. In the summer of 1973, Israeli
   military expert Moshe Dayan predicted that Egypt would not attack
   Israel for a long time. The USAns of course, did not predict the attack
   on Pearl Harbor - though it too was an obvious possibility in hindsight.

So much for experts.

You seem to be claiming (if I understand) that the formation of the
CIA based on the predicted need for information, could somehow
be used to predict the importance of the computer and information
industry 30 years later. I think they
are 2 different and unrelated things. We are not talking about the
same kind of information. It is true that computers were developed and
harnessed for war purposes, and that some of them were used in spy-related work
(encryption)
but that is as far as the relation goes.
In hindsight, we can also predict the explosion of the computer industry -
but only in hindsight .

Some kinds of predictions (eg "we will need more information:) are
obvious, and some may be self-fulfilling.
Overall though, futurist predictions have not done well. I think that the
problem is in seeing how the individual changes interact in the system -
and in predicting novelty (Internet for example). In trying to understand
how culture or society will be affected by the Internet and other technologies,
we need precisely that kind of interactive predictive ability - and we don't
have it.

Regarding Marx, I am talking only of what Marx himself predicted:
The socialist revolution did not take place in the most industrialized
country (or maybe it simply has not taken place yet) and profits
have not been falling continuously (or maybe we have not waited
long enough).

Regarding the Soviet Union, there is nobody, I think, who now says
"I knew it was happening, I said so, and nobody listened." The CIA
certainly did not know and missed the mark. I do not recall seeing
any argument that the USSR was on the verge of falling apart prior
to Gorbachev. So I am not sure your argument:
 "On the other hand if someone told you at the time
you probably disregarded it because it was not your personal
opinion-position" has any relevance - because I am not sure
anyone had that opinion and I certainly never heard it - did you?.
Nonetheless, you have raised an interesting
point. If a new, correct opinion is expressed, and it is contrary to
accepted "wisdom" -  how do we recognize it?
It is naive to think that the truth will be self-evident or triumph of its
own accord.

You wrote:

". It was very clear that as far as spheres of influence, after
WWII, there was only two possible scenarios. "

In fact, as history proves - there was only _one_ possible
scenario (at least in our branch of reality) -
the one that happened :-)  However, hindsight is so much
clearer than foresight. If, for example, China had become a
3d force in the 70s or 80s, or if a different kind of evolution had
occurred in the USSR after Stalin, there could have been a very
different scenario.

You wrote:
"there are very specific people in all fields that can very easily can
tell you trends..."

Juan, in my experience, if you ask 2 experts you will get at least 2
different opinions and possibly 3 on any question. If it was as easy
as you make out, it would be child's play to know how to become
a millionaire.

Best Regards,
Ami





----- Original Message -----
From: Juan JosŽ D’az Infante <jdiazinfante@altamiracave.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:31
Subject: [forum1] Re: structure in discussion