Bruce Sterling Annotates Kunstler

Sometimes sarcastic? They are, one and all, exactly that. The good points they may raise have been lost as a result of Sterling's inability to begin an honest debate. Reading it was like watching politicians swat at each other on television. Worthless.

I have to agree unfortunately. While I usually like Bruce Sterling's commentaries, this didn't seem to add much to the topic at all! Much of the time I was unsure whether he was trying to agree or disagree with the author - or just make some witty remark.

Kunstler's narrative has struck me as condescending, and his consequence analysis over reaching (by intent, to overcome denial of course). Kunstler's opinions being without citation in basis, it seems to me that the snippy remarks were mildly deserved. Personalities aside, no one has yet constructed a climate change outcome scenario that I find highly convincing. A few good scenarios are needed for next US administration to plan around. The grist for these surely exist between the two views.

sterling's annotations remind me of adolescent smartassery in the face of parental admonition. the problems with prognostication are obvious but i'd be intrerested in hearing something more serious from the likes of "a very smart" etc

One must remember that Kunstler went hyperbolic prior to Y2K predicting an uproarious doom then.

He's a man who loves to rant and hyperventalate with grisly scenarios. Unfortunately none of what he predicts ever comes to pass.

Which is not to say that our oil-based economy and life-style is not threatened by reduced supply and higher prices. But removed of the grandiose hyperbole and negation of any/all alternatives to utter and total doom what Kunstler gives us is simply a comic strip.

Kunstler aside, having read a lot of his stuff, generally speaking, Bruce's initials are an apt discription of his work. I've seen him dodge questions about his dubious claims by claiming 'don't ask me, I'm just a sci-fi guy'. Pah!! THen he should stop trying to pass himself off as a knowledgeable source of information on society and technology, and instead realize that aside from lending his brand name to various worthwhile organisation, his current value is as an antagonist, in stirring the pot to stimulate and highlight areas for explanation.

For ages we've been playing 'guess who wrote this' in Wired mag. By comparison L. Lessig writes intelligent, informed columns. There is rarely any substance to Bruce's writings, where there is, it seems someone else has seeded it for him. He frequently strings together cliches & unsubstantiated references but sensationalises this stuff to please undiscerning readers. A memorable one was his uninformed BS piece in Wired on the Green Revolution. RAHHH!

His Sci Fi & imaginative writing, no problems. It bothers me when he pretends to be informed & insightful, and people use his psuedo-froth techo-babble to justify for poorly thought out theories or actions in technology. It annoys me to see some otherwise intelligent and informed writers trying to emulate his approach - they just come across as arrogant and uninformed. I'll go get my hat now.