|
Now this, I entirely agree with. On the one hand, it's a perfectly reasonable (and interesting) question (IMO). On the other hand, as you are pointing out - Banks appears to be writing quite explicitly from the perspective that "genius" and "productivity" (in the sense of creative, scientific, technological, etc. advances) are obviously GOOD and IMPORTANT. And, there seems to be a strong current of "if we knew what served as the 'fertile silt' for these ... 'Cambrian explosions' of creativity / science / tech... we could use this knowledge to foster the appropriate conditions and better harness our magnificent human potential." Now, granted, I'm obviously purposefully cherry picking (to a degree) from a large enough essay AND "putting words in his mouth" (hyperbolic, comparatively) to a degree that I'm almost certainly glossing over language that's more nuanced and judicious, say. Nevertheless, I'm somewhat surprised at ... his surprise, the rosy cast of the whole thing, and, I think the quite incomplete nature of his analysis of the data and information that IS available. Further, I outright disagree with any premise that "genius" is straightforwardly or simply "net positive". I don't think there's a need to bring the subjective into it, per se. And, much like discoveries and advances in "nuclear chemistry / physics" (providing a particularly stark example, IMO - nuclear/radiological weapons / nuclear energy of various types, medicine, etc.), most of this is "neutral", at best. I used to be far more "pro-advances", and I'm still no Luddite etc., but, really ... the continuous barrage of, in some sense, "f'ing around and finding out" (esp. when it comes to technologies enabled by all of the work of geniuses) really ought to make more people question assumptions about what is seemingly so often taken for granted as being "good". (Apologies for likely excessive verbosity - it's way too late...) |