What do you think?
Rate this book
Edge Question
What Should We Be Worried About? Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night
Drawing from the horizons of science, today's leading thinkers reveal the hidden threats nobody is talking about—and expose the false fears everyone else is distracted by.
What should we be worried about? That is the question John Brockman, publisher of Edge.org ("The world's smartest website"—The Guardian), posed to the planet's most influential minds. He asked them to disclose something that, for scientific reasons, worries them—particularly scenarios that aren't on the popular radar yet. Encompassing neuroscience, economics, philosophy, physics, psychology, biology, and more—here are 150 ideas that will revolutionize your understanding of the world.
Steven Pinker uncovers the real risk factors for war * Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi peers into the coming virtual abyss * Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek laments our squandered opportunities to prevent global catastrophe * Seth Lloyd calculates the threat of a financial black hole * Alison Gopnik on the loss of childhood * Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains why firefighters understand risk far better than economic "experts" * Matt Ridley on the alarming re-emergence of superstition * Daniel C. Dennett and george dyson ponder the impact of a major breakdown of the Internet * Jennifer Jacquet fears human-induced damage to the planet due to "the Anthropocebo Effect" * Douglas Rushkoff fears humanity is losing its soul * Nicholas Carr on the "patience deficit" * Tim O'Reilly foresees a coming new Dark Age * Scott Atran on the homogenization of human experience * Sherry Turkle explores what's lost when kids are constantly connected * Kevin Kelly outlines the looming "underpopulation bomb" * Helen Fisher on the fate of men * Lawrence Krauss dreads what we don't know about the universe * Susan Blackmore on the loss of manual skills * Kate Jeffery on the death of death * plus J. Craig Venter, Daniel Goleman, Virginia Heffernan, Sam Harris, Brian Eno, Martin Rees, and more
What should we be worried about? That is the question John Brockman, publisher of Edge.org ("The world's smartest website"—The Guardian), posed to the planet's most influential minds. He asked them to disclose something that, for scientific reasons, worries them—particularly scenarios that aren't on the popular radar yet. Encompassing neuroscience, economics, philosophy, physics, psychology, biology, and more—here are 150 ideas that will revolutionize your understanding of the world.
Steven Pinker uncovers the real risk factors for war * Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi peers into the coming virtual abyss * Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek laments our squandered opportunities to prevent global catastrophe * Seth Lloyd calculates the threat of a financial black hole * Alison Gopnik on the loss of childhood * Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains why firefighters understand risk far better than economic "experts" * Matt Ridley on the alarming re-emergence of superstition * Daniel C. Dennett and george dyson ponder the impact of a major breakdown of the Internet * Jennifer Jacquet fears human-induced damage to the planet due to "the Anthropocebo Effect" * Douglas Rushkoff fears humanity is losing its soul * Nicholas Carr on the "patience deficit" * Tim O'Reilly foresees a coming new Dark Age * Scott Atran on the homogenization of human experience * Sherry Turkle explores what's lost when kids are constantly connected * Kevin Kelly outlines the looming "underpopulation bomb" * Helen Fisher on the fate of men * Lawrence Krauss dreads what we don't know about the universe * Susan Blackmore on the loss of manual skills * Kate Jeffery on the death of death * plus J. Craig Venter, Daniel Goleman, Virginia Heffernan, Sam Harris, Brian Eno, Martin Rees, and more
478 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
About the author
John Brockman
62 books606 followersJohn Brockman is an American literary agent and author specializing in scientific literature. He established the Edge Foundation, an organization that brings together leading edge thinkers across a broad range of scientific and technical fields.
He is author and editor of several books, including: The Third Culture (1995); The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years (2000); The Next Fifty Years (2002) and The New Humanists (2003).
He has the distinction of being the only person to have been profiled on Page One of the "Science Times" (1997) and the "Arts & Leisure" (1966), both supplements of The New York Times.
He is author and editor of several books, including: The Third Culture (1995); The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years (2000); The Next Fifty Years (2002) and The New Humanists (2003).
He has the distinction of being the only person to have been profiled on Page One of the "Science Times" (1997) and the "Arts & Leisure" (1966), both supplements of The New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 165 reviews
December 17, 2017
150 short essays on issues scientists think should be of concern. After the first 100 pages, I thought I would never sleep again. By the time I finished it, I was a devoted follower of Alfred E. Neumann. I picked five things I'm never worrying about again and five legitimate concerns. I did enjoy the metaworry essays - we have nothing to worry about but worry itself.
Worry about a world where no one is paying attention.
Worry about whether the Internet is devaluing words.
Worry that people who can and should be concerned about the state of the planet are bogged down in trivia or minor side issues.
Worry about human behavior with regard to vaccination.
Worry that the value of human labor is being decimated.
Don't worry about regulatory agencies being captured by industry they are to regulate.
Don't worry about aliens hearing earth broadcasts.
Don't worry about long-term investment in science.
Don't worry about unmarried men in China.
Don't worry about living a good life. Just do it.
And two great quotes. Brian Eno: while we are laissez-ing, someone else is faire-ing. Terry Gilliam: I float on a tsunami of acceptance of anything life throws at me and marvel stupidly
Worry about a world where no one is paying attention.
Worry about whether the Internet is devaluing words.
Worry that people who can and should be concerned about the state of the planet are bogged down in trivia or minor side issues.
Worry about human behavior with regard to vaccination.
Worry that the value of human labor is being decimated.
Don't worry about regulatory agencies being captured by industry they are to regulate.
Don't worry about aliens hearing earth broadcasts.
Don't worry about long-term investment in science.
Don't worry about unmarried men in China.
Don't worry about living a good life. Just do it.
And two great quotes. Brian Eno: while we are laissez-ing, someone else is faire-ing. Terry Gilliam: I float on a tsunami of acceptance of anything life throws at me and marvel stupidly
Read
November 9, 2014One of the things I liked about this book is what was NOT in it. No right wing crackpots complaining about Obama taking away their guns or the UN taking over the world. No left wing crackpots complaining about America taking over the world or the evils of the NSA. Each commentator used logic and reason. Intelligence ruled. There were 153 brief essays from one to five pages each. I actually found it difficult to disagree with any of them, even those that expressed opposite viewpoints. Here are some of the ideas:
The twin evils of humanity are superstition and ignorance. Religion pretty much represents both of those. Now add in the politicization of science and we have a bigger problem.
Climate change will wrack economies and nations. Time to wake up folks. Can we finally make it an election issue?
Growth steers us toward ecological chaos. We are pushing the biosphere to its limits. By far, environmental problems are our worse. Our resources are limited. Growth cannot continue forever, Gentle Reader. Time to change for the sake of future generations.
Economic growth, the central illusion of the age of capital, may be ending. The fact is economic growth is a recent phenomenon anyway. With borrowing levels now unsustainable, debt-engineered growth may be at an end.
The idea of 10 billion sharing the planet by 2050 is a truly dreadful prediction. Time to fight back against those individuals and groups who oppose efforts to control population growth.
Democracy is increasingly looking like a failure. That saddens me. And yet a liberal democracy with a market economy seems to be our best bet.
Search engines are becoming arbiters of the truth. They will tell you what you want to hear.
Vaccinations work. Use them.
The false promises of other worlds become antagonists of logical thinking. There is no Paradise. Let's focus on the world we live in. It's in trouble.
We are unable to focus on long term goals for the planet. We instead care only about the here and now. It will be our epitaph.
Humans are now a global geological force destroying the world. The data is irrefutable that we are the dominant driver of environmental change.
There is no free will. We just FEEL like there is. We need to deal with that and understand its ramifications.
There is no after life. None. Not a single shred of actual evidence. Let's get on with fixing up this world. Believing in an afterlife only leads to avoiding the decisions needed in this life.
We need to accept death and help people to die in a humane way.
We should be investing in infrastructure, education, and opportunity for young people. Please tell the Republicans.
More unmarried men leads to greater crime rates.
Prisons show the negative power of bad incentives.
We want to cure cancer rather than eliminate the poisons that cause it.
As a species, we are disconnected from the natural world.
We must change how we use water. It's critical. It's being destroyed.
The Web generates information without any backing up. Idiocracy is on the way.
Less educated people are more conservative. They are an obstacle to progress.
Climate change and religious zealotry are having significant spillover effects on our planet.
We need more global cooperation.
Normal people are not as nice as we make them out to be.
Poverty has a crippling effect on children when they grow up. It must be stopped.
Science is in danger of being taken over by the rich and powerful. Just look at the influence of the Koch brothers on science.
The gun companies and their front in the NRA have prevented the CDC from studying the effect of guns and health. They actually passed laws to prevent that. Shame.
There is a growing gap between science and the average person who is ignorant of science.
We live in the past or want the past to return. This makes it impossible for the future to get here. As William Gibson said, "The future is here--it's just not evenly distributed."
There will be unknowns we have not yet grasped.
Jorge Luis Borges: "How else can one threaten other than with death? The interesting, the original thing, would be to threaten someone with immortality."
Dostoevsky spent a half hour studying Holbein's Death of Christ. Two years later, he described it in detail in The Idiot.
"Global warming" needs a stronger name.
Young people aren't talking any more.
And mine: "The way things are now is not the way they will always be. Please prepare."
The twin evils of humanity are superstition and ignorance. Religion pretty much represents both of those. Now add in the politicization of science and we have a bigger problem.
Climate change will wrack economies and nations. Time to wake up folks. Can we finally make it an election issue?
Growth steers us toward ecological chaos. We are pushing the biosphere to its limits. By far, environmental problems are our worse. Our resources are limited. Growth cannot continue forever, Gentle Reader. Time to change for the sake of future generations.
Economic growth, the central illusion of the age of capital, may be ending. The fact is economic growth is a recent phenomenon anyway. With borrowing levels now unsustainable, debt-engineered growth may be at an end.
The idea of 10 billion sharing the planet by 2050 is a truly dreadful prediction. Time to fight back against those individuals and groups who oppose efforts to control population growth.
Democracy is increasingly looking like a failure. That saddens me. And yet a liberal democracy with a market economy seems to be our best bet.
Search engines are becoming arbiters of the truth. They will tell you what you want to hear.
Vaccinations work. Use them.
The false promises of other worlds become antagonists of logical thinking. There is no Paradise. Let's focus on the world we live in. It's in trouble.
We are unable to focus on long term goals for the planet. We instead care only about the here and now. It will be our epitaph.
Humans are now a global geological force destroying the world. The data is irrefutable that we are the dominant driver of environmental change.
There is no free will. We just FEEL like there is. We need to deal with that and understand its ramifications.
There is no after life. None. Not a single shred of actual evidence. Let's get on with fixing up this world. Believing in an afterlife only leads to avoiding the decisions needed in this life.
We need to accept death and help people to die in a humane way.
We should be investing in infrastructure, education, and opportunity for young people. Please tell the Republicans.
More unmarried men leads to greater crime rates.
Prisons show the negative power of bad incentives.
We want to cure cancer rather than eliminate the poisons that cause it.
As a species, we are disconnected from the natural world.
We must change how we use water. It's critical. It's being destroyed.
The Web generates information without any backing up. Idiocracy is on the way.
Less educated people are more conservative. They are an obstacle to progress.
Climate change and religious zealotry are having significant spillover effects on our planet.
We need more global cooperation.
Normal people are not as nice as we make them out to be.
Poverty has a crippling effect on children when they grow up. It must be stopped.
Science is in danger of being taken over by the rich and powerful. Just look at the influence of the Koch brothers on science.
The gun companies and their front in the NRA have prevented the CDC from studying the effect of guns and health. They actually passed laws to prevent that. Shame.
There is a growing gap between science and the average person who is ignorant of science.
We live in the past or want the past to return. This makes it impossible for the future to get here. As William Gibson said, "The future is here--it's just not evenly distributed."
There will be unknowns we have not yet grasped.
Jorge Luis Borges: "How else can one threaten other than with death? The interesting, the original thing, would be to threaten someone with immortality."
Dostoevsky spent a half hour studying Holbein's Death of Christ. Two years later, he described it in detail in The Idiot.
"Global warming" needs a stronger name.
Young people aren't talking any more.
And mine: "The way things are now is not the way they will always be. Please prepare."
March 24, 2014
Oh, I completely misunderstood the concept for the book. Read blurbs more carefully, ems!!
The format is 150 very short sections, almost always written by someone who has a book to flog, each raising a concern e.g. "living without the internet for a couple of weeks," (yes, this scares me, too), kids not learning about hardship and overcoming obstacles, the singularity, the eradication of human biological death, are we becoming too connected etc.
The sections are once over, lightly. They don't discuss the ideas in any depth; they can't, and they weren't intended to.
Entirely failed to capture my attention.
The format is 150 very short sections, almost always written by someone who has a book to flog, each raising a concern e.g. "living without the internet for a couple of weeks," (yes, this scares me, too), kids not learning about hardship and overcoming obstacles, the singularity, the eradication of human biological death, are we becoming too connected etc.
The sections are once over, lightly. They don't discuss the ideas in any depth; they can't, and they weren't intended to.
Entirely failed to capture my attention.
July 20, 2016
A collection of short and very short essays of various authors (mostly academics) about the threats we are facing and are likely to face in the near future. The topics are very diverse, ranging from technological, environmental, digital to social, psychological and even statistical issues. Some of the essays are very captivating, enlightened while others seems to be too dull to read. However, by reading this book, the reader may have general ideas about what catastrophes the individual and the whole society may encounter in the near future, and they may grab a new boo. Highly recommended for the people who have interest in sciences but lack of time to read a big book.
April 17, 2014
I loved the idea of this book. It took the opinions of over 120 scientists, educators, and journalists who discussed where we should point our attention towards in fields like neuroscience, economics, computer science, politics, philosophy, physics, social media, psychology, biology, etc. Who better else to ask "What should we be worried about" than some of the most influential minds of today? Almost every entry was interesting and caught my attention; so much so that I wanted more from each submission. Each submission was, on average, 1-2 pages- for topics like these, it was simply not enough. The editor did a remarkable job at gathering the input and delivering the main idea of each worry that accompanied the contributors. There are some points brought up in the book that are rarely talked about in the media or even in some educational venus; which is why I think it's an amazing read. I'm not the biggest fan of collection books like these, but for sake of getting people to focus on issues that will have a real, lasting affect on society and the world, I didn't mind pushing through the almost 500 pages.
March 22, 2018
A ton of good content, like a treasure trove of good content in this book that is backed by scientists from many different fields. I could say that this book is book for people who want to some relevant business in the world.
February 25, 2015
Mostly excellent with some notes out of tune. This is a compilation of short essays by leading thinkers in a wide range of fields, all in response to the editor's asking them the titular question.
Their responses were mostly quite thoughtful and covered a range from potential wars, to the impacts on civil liberties of new technologies, to the growing crisis of access to drinkable water for the more than seven billion of us now living on Earth, and a slew of others that are cogently thought out and definitely possible threats to our collective welfare.
There were some that were ridiculous, flippant, or just dismissive, as in one titled "There Is Nothing to Worry About, and There Never Was." That's just inane. Global warming? The growing drought in much of the world's most productive croplands? The growing problem of medication-resistant diseases? Nothing to worry about?
Some others took the theme that we should be worried about the fact that we're worried - again, that ignores real problems, and it seems to me to be just an exercise in navel-gazing. Worrying is often appropriate, it has survival value and often leads to productive activity, and we aren't going to get rid of it short of lobotomizing people at birth.
If I'd been John Brockman, I would only have included responses that were serious and showed some thought, no matter who wrote them.
Their responses were mostly quite thoughtful and covered a range from potential wars, to the impacts on civil liberties of new technologies, to the growing crisis of access to drinkable water for the more than seven billion of us now living on Earth, and a slew of others that are cogently thought out and definitely possible threats to our collective welfare.
There were some that were ridiculous, flippant, or just dismissive, as in one titled "There Is Nothing to Worry About, and There Never Was." That's just inane. Global warming? The growing drought in much of the world's most productive croplands? The growing problem of medication-resistant diseases? Nothing to worry about?
Some others took the theme that we should be worried about the fact that we're worried - again, that ignores real problems, and it seems to me to be just an exercise in navel-gazing. Worrying is often appropriate, it has survival value and often leads to productive activity, and we aren't going to get rid of it short of lobotomizing people at birth.
If I'd been John Brockman, I would only have included responses that were serious and showed some thought, no matter who wrote them.
February 3, 2017
Short essays on different topics scientists think should be of concern. And we should be worried. I thought at first that this was a dull collection, however, it was a good read in general. Of course, there's always the thing with essay collections that there are writers and topic you don't like or don't agree with.
To sum up, yes we should be very worried about many things. Like the nuclear war, global warming, cosmology, internet, natural selection...
To sum up, yes we should be very worried about many things. Like the nuclear war, global warming, cosmology, internet, natural selection...
January 22, 2018
What I liked the most about this book (or maybe I should point out that this is more of a compilation of short essays, as it seems, after reading some reviews, that some people were expecting something different), is that in two or three instances, I came across ideas that made me think twice and reconsider ideals that I already had. And in some cases, I found ideas or thoughts that I had already formed, written and expressed in a clearer way than I could've acheived.
Now, this does make it sound a bit as if this book will transform your thinking, but it's not like that at all. It should be pointed out and acknowledged that you're not going to agree with every single one of the 150 short essays. But that to me, is a given, and something I was already expecting going into the book. So, sure, I didn't agree with some of the essays and I found others silly or plain ridiculous, but I'm not going to give a bad rating to the book because I don't agree with 100% of something. On the other hand, even if I was already expecting not to sympathize with all of the ideas presented in this book, I did find it a bit disappointing that initially, I thought I was going to find a lot more interesting and intriguing ideas, and yet, I seem to have forgotten most of them already.
Some of them were too technical, like a scientist talking to a fellow scientist (I'm not a scientist), though those were a minority, and most of them did seem to try and explain their thoughts to people that aren't familiar with scientific terms or their respective scientific branches or specialties. In the end I would estimate that I did ended up skipping about 5 to 10 essays after realizing half-way through, that I wasn't understanding anything, given that it was getting too technical.
So, overall I did find a few interesting ideas and premises here and there, but it wasn't nearly as eye-opening as I originally thought.
Now, this does make it sound a bit as if this book will transform your thinking, but it's not like that at all. It should be pointed out and acknowledged that you're not going to agree with every single one of the 150 short essays. But that to me, is a given, and something I was already expecting going into the book. So, sure, I didn't agree with some of the essays and I found others silly or plain ridiculous, but I'm not going to give a bad rating to the book because I don't agree with 100% of something. On the other hand, even if I was already expecting not to sympathize with all of the ideas presented in this book, I did find it a bit disappointing that initially, I thought I was going to find a lot more interesting and intriguing ideas, and yet, I seem to have forgotten most of them already.
Some of them were too technical, like a scientist talking to a fellow scientist (I'm not a scientist), though those were a minority, and most of them did seem to try and explain their thoughts to people that aren't familiar with scientific terms or their respective scientific branches or specialties. In the end I would estimate that I did ended up skipping about 5 to 10 essays after realizing half-way through, that I wasn't understanding anything, given that it was getting too technical.
So, overall I did find a few interesting ideas and premises here and there, but it wasn't nearly as eye-opening as I originally thought.
March 12, 2014
What Should We Be Worried About?: Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night by John Brockman
“What Should We Be Worried About?" is a thought-provoking book of scientific essays brought to you by The Edge. The Edge is an organization that presents original ideas by today's leading thinkers from a wide spectrum of scientific fields. The 2014 Edge question is, “What should we be worried about?” This interesting 531-page book provides 153 short essays that address the question. The quality of the essays in this book range from a couple of one star duds to a handful of outstanding 5-star essays.
For my sake, I created a spreadsheet of all the essays and graded them from zero to five stars based on overall quality. A quality essay to me is well written, interesting, addresses the topic, and either teaches me something new or uses the best of our current knowledge effectively. On the other hand, those receiving a one or even a zero represent essays that were not worthy of this book. Of course, this is just one reviewer's personal opinion.
Positives:
1. Generally well-written, succinct essays. High quality-value.
2. An excellent question, “What Should We Be Worried About?”
3. You don’t have to read the essays in order.
4. Well-balanced book, covers the question from many scientific angles.
5. There were a number of outstanding essays. The following outstanding positives cover an outstanding essay starting with, “We are in denial about catastrophic risks” by Martin Rees. Does a wonderful job of covering a range of end world scenarios.
6. “A synthetic world” by Serian Sumner. He worries the natural world becoming naturally unnatural.
7. “Who’s afraid of the big bad words?” by Benjamin Berger. “I learned something new based on research. The fact that no words is so terrible that merely hearing them would pose any danger to young ears.”
8. “The rise of anti-intellectualism and the end of progress” by Tim O’Reilly. This essay really resonated with me. “What I fear most is that we will lack the will and foresight to face the world’s problems squarely and will instead retreat from them into superstition and ignorance.”
9. “Objects of Desire” by Sherry Turkle. This is an essay that will resonate with parents.
10. “The is-ought fallacy of science and morality” by Michael Shermer. One of my favorite essays. “Scientists should have a voice in determining human values and morals.”
11. “That we won’t make use of the error catastrophe threshold” by William McEwan. Excellent essay. “Viruses replicate near the boundary of fidelity required to successfully pass information to the next generation. I worry that we will not devise a way to push them over that boundary.”
12. “Misplaced worries” by Dan Sperber. “What I am particularly worried about is that humans will be less and less able to appreciate what they should be worrying about and that their worries will do them more harm than good.”
13. “Unfriendly physics, monsters from the ID, and self-organizing collective delusions” by John Tooby. “Cooperative scientific problem solving is the most beautifully effective system for the production of reliable knowledge the world has ever seen.”
14. “Data disenfranchisement” by David Rowan. “We need to start seeing data literacy as a requisite fundamental skill in a 21st-century democracy, and to campaign—and perhaps even legislate—to protect the interests of those being left behind.”
15. “Big experiments won’t happen” by Lisa Randall. “I worry that people will gradually stop the major long-term investments in research that are essential if we are to answer difficult (and often abstract) scientific questions.”
16. “Quantum Mechanics” by Lee Smolin. “I don’t believe quantum mechanics gives a complete description of nature. I strongly believe there is another, truer description waiting to be discovered.”
17. “What—me worry?” by J. Craig Venter. “I firmly believe that only science can provide solutions for these challenges, but the adoption of these ideas will depend on the will of governments and individuals.”
18. “Natural death” by Antony Garrett Lisi. One of my favorite essays. “Knowing that our lives are so short makes each moment and each interaction more precious. The happiness and love we find and make in life are all we get. The fact that there is no supernatural being in the universe that cares about us makes it that much more important that we care about one another.”
19. “Classic social sciences’ failure to understand modern states shaped by crime” by Eduardo Salcedo-Albar. Timely essay that captures in essence what is going on in the Ukraine and Venezuela.
20. “Science has not brought us closer to understanding cancer” by Xeni Jardin. “The research and science that will cure cancer will not necessarily be done by big-name cancer hospitals or by Big Pharma. It requires a new way of thinking about illness, health, and science itself.”
21. “Exaggerated expectations” by Stuart Firestein. “Facts are not immutable, and discoveries are provisional. This is the messy process of science. We should worry that our unrealistic expectations will destroy this amazing mess.”
22. “Where did you get that fact?” by Victoria Stodden. “Without the ability to question findings, we risk fooling ourselves into thinking we are capitalizing on the Information Age when we’re really just making decisions based on evidence that no one, except perhaps the people who generated it, can actually understand. That’s the door closing.”
23. “C.P. Snow’s two cultures and the nature-nurture debate” by Simon Baron-Cohen. “What worries me is that the debate about gender differences still seems to polarize nature vs. nurture, with some in the social sciences and humanities arguing that biology plays no role at all, apparently unaware of the scientific evidence to the contrary.”
24. “Unknown unknowns” by Gary Marcus. “Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has pointed out that the three greatest unknowns we should worry about are biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the rise of machines more intelligent than human beings.”
25. “What we learn from firefighter: how fat are the fat tails?” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. “Only a rule of skin in the game—that is, direct harm from one’s errors—can puncture the game aspect of such research and establish some form of contact with reality.”
Negatives:
1. There are just a few essays that were not worthy of this book, but just a few.
2. I was surprised not to see more apocalyptic type scenarios including wars or natural disasters.
3. Some essays are not really of major concern.
4. Requires an investment of time to get through.
In summary, I’m a big fan of The Edge and these types of books. They’re fun to read and provide many different perspectives on a given question. Philosophy is asking the right questions and good science is providing the answers based on the best of our current knowledge. You should be worried about not reading these types of books. I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: “This Explains Everything” and “This Will Make You Smarter” and “This Will Change Everything” by the same author, John Brockman, “Spectrums” by David Blatner, “The Elegant Universe” and “Hidden Reality” by Brian Greene, “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss, “About Time” by Adam Frank, “Higgs Discovery” and “Warped Passages” by Lisa Randall, “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking, “The Quantum Universe” by Brian Cox, “The Blind Spot” by William Byers, and “The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning” and “God and the Atom” by Victor Stenger.
“What Should We Be Worried About?" is a thought-provoking book of scientific essays brought to you by The Edge. The Edge is an organization that presents original ideas by today's leading thinkers from a wide spectrum of scientific fields. The 2014 Edge question is, “What should we be worried about?” This interesting 531-page book provides 153 short essays that address the question. The quality of the essays in this book range from a couple of one star duds to a handful of outstanding 5-star essays.
For my sake, I created a spreadsheet of all the essays and graded them from zero to five stars based on overall quality. A quality essay to me is well written, interesting, addresses the topic, and either teaches me something new or uses the best of our current knowledge effectively. On the other hand, those receiving a one or even a zero represent essays that were not worthy of this book. Of course, this is just one reviewer's personal opinion.
Positives:
1. Generally well-written, succinct essays. High quality-value.
2. An excellent question, “What Should We Be Worried About?”
3. You don’t have to read the essays in order.
4. Well-balanced book, covers the question from many scientific angles.
5. There were a number of outstanding essays. The following outstanding positives cover an outstanding essay starting with, “We are in denial about catastrophic risks” by Martin Rees. Does a wonderful job of covering a range of end world scenarios.
6. “A synthetic world” by Serian Sumner. He worries the natural world becoming naturally unnatural.
7. “Who’s afraid of the big bad words?” by Benjamin Berger. “I learned something new based on research. The fact that no words is so terrible that merely hearing them would pose any danger to young ears.”
8. “The rise of anti-intellectualism and the end of progress” by Tim O’Reilly. This essay really resonated with me. “What I fear most is that we will lack the will and foresight to face the world’s problems squarely and will instead retreat from them into superstition and ignorance.”
9. “Objects of Desire” by Sherry Turkle. This is an essay that will resonate with parents.
10. “The is-ought fallacy of science and morality” by Michael Shermer. One of my favorite essays. “Scientists should have a voice in determining human values and morals.”
11. “That we won’t make use of the error catastrophe threshold” by William McEwan. Excellent essay. “Viruses replicate near the boundary of fidelity required to successfully pass information to the next generation. I worry that we will not devise a way to push them over that boundary.”
12. “Misplaced worries” by Dan Sperber. “What I am particularly worried about is that humans will be less and less able to appreciate what they should be worrying about and that their worries will do them more harm than good.”
13. “Unfriendly physics, monsters from the ID, and self-organizing collective delusions” by John Tooby. “Cooperative scientific problem solving is the most beautifully effective system for the production of reliable knowledge the world has ever seen.”
14. “Data disenfranchisement” by David Rowan. “We need to start seeing data literacy as a requisite fundamental skill in a 21st-century democracy, and to campaign—and perhaps even legislate—to protect the interests of those being left behind.”
15. “Big experiments won’t happen” by Lisa Randall. “I worry that people will gradually stop the major long-term investments in research that are essential if we are to answer difficult (and often abstract) scientific questions.”
16. “Quantum Mechanics” by Lee Smolin. “I don’t believe quantum mechanics gives a complete description of nature. I strongly believe there is another, truer description waiting to be discovered.”
17. “What—me worry?” by J. Craig Venter. “I firmly believe that only science can provide solutions for these challenges, but the adoption of these ideas will depend on the will of governments and individuals.”
18. “Natural death” by Antony Garrett Lisi. One of my favorite essays. “Knowing that our lives are so short makes each moment and each interaction more precious. The happiness and love we find and make in life are all we get. The fact that there is no supernatural being in the universe that cares about us makes it that much more important that we care about one another.”
19. “Classic social sciences’ failure to understand modern states shaped by crime” by Eduardo Salcedo-Albar. Timely essay that captures in essence what is going on in the Ukraine and Venezuela.
20. “Science has not brought us closer to understanding cancer” by Xeni Jardin. “The research and science that will cure cancer will not necessarily be done by big-name cancer hospitals or by Big Pharma. It requires a new way of thinking about illness, health, and science itself.”
21. “Exaggerated expectations” by Stuart Firestein. “Facts are not immutable, and discoveries are provisional. This is the messy process of science. We should worry that our unrealistic expectations will destroy this amazing mess.”
22. “Where did you get that fact?” by Victoria Stodden. “Without the ability to question findings, we risk fooling ourselves into thinking we are capitalizing on the Information Age when we’re really just making decisions based on evidence that no one, except perhaps the people who generated it, can actually understand. That’s the door closing.”
23. “C.P. Snow’s two cultures and the nature-nurture debate” by Simon Baron-Cohen. “What worries me is that the debate about gender differences still seems to polarize nature vs. nurture, with some in the social sciences and humanities arguing that biology plays no role at all, apparently unaware of the scientific evidence to the contrary.”
24. “Unknown unknowns” by Gary Marcus. “Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has pointed out that the three greatest unknowns we should worry about are biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the rise of machines more intelligent than human beings.”
25. “What we learn from firefighter: how fat are the fat tails?” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. “Only a rule of skin in the game—that is, direct harm from one’s errors—can puncture the game aspect of such research and establish some form of contact with reality.”
Negatives:
1. There are just a few essays that were not worthy of this book, but just a few.
2. I was surprised not to see more apocalyptic type scenarios including wars or natural disasters.
3. Some essays are not really of major concern.
4. Requires an investment of time to get through.
In summary, I’m a big fan of The Edge and these types of books. They’re fun to read and provide many different perspectives on a given question. Philosophy is asking the right questions and good science is providing the answers based on the best of our current knowledge. You should be worried about not reading these types of books. I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: “This Explains Everything” and “This Will Make You Smarter” and “This Will Change Everything” by the same author, John Brockman, “Spectrums” by David Blatner, “The Elegant Universe” and “Hidden Reality” by Brian Greene, “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss, “About Time” by Adam Frank, “Higgs Discovery” and “Warped Passages” by Lisa Randall, “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking, “The Quantum Universe” by Brian Cox, “The Blind Spot” by William Byers, and “The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning” and “God and the Atom” by Victor Stenger.
August 5, 2014
A few years ago I decided I didn't have as much time to live on edge.org like I'd like to so I stopped reading the site every day. I pretty much stopped altogether and try to fit into my too long reading list John Brockman's annual collections of answers to his...um, annual questions.
Now that the Edge Question is a pageant, I get the impression reading this one that quite a few contributors think to themselves, "Crap! Another question. Well, I have to submit something or I won't be viable anymore!" And I really want to know who didn't make the cut! because some of these baffle me. Jim Rome's radio schtick of "have a take...and don't suck" didn't seem to apply to the getting process. Or, maybe it did!
The answers to what we should worry about range from a handful of genuine concerns to some pretty whacky (think soft sciences) ones, running the gamut with more than a little overlap. A lot of those soft science contributions - from psychologists, sociologists and... apparently people actually do call themselves...philosophers - sure seemed to either be lectures on some sort of history or self-promotion. Note to those guys: answer the damn question and stroke your ego on your own time.
Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist, wrote in his essay, “The task of separating the good thoughts from the silly ones is hard, of course, but this is where intelligence matters”. Brockman's editing/selection could have used more intelligence, because we're supposed to be worried about Internet effects on words or declining population or it being too late to stop telling aggressive aliens where we live. On the other hand, there are excellent observations about legitimate concerns over dumbing down of the populace, science illiteracy and similar sentiments.
Despite the odd assortment of WTF? essays, I concurred with many, including problems of "fast knowledge" - (paraphrasing in my words) smart devices make it so we don't have to think/remember; digital tattoos - we're leaving lasting trails of ourselves everyday on the world interconnections; reduction in science knowledge due to social media - “In sum, the science that laypeople encounter will become increasingly unfiltered by scientific experts."; anti-intellectualism; and the rise of stupid.
Always interesting, for the social experiment of scientists and others vying to be included, as well as the content.
Now that the Edge Question is a pageant, I get the impression reading this one that quite a few contributors think to themselves, "Crap! Another question. Well, I have to submit something or I won't be viable anymore!" And I really want to know who didn't make the cut! because some of these baffle me. Jim Rome's radio schtick of "have a take...and don't suck" didn't seem to apply to the getting process. Or, maybe it did!
The answers to what we should worry about range from a handful of genuine concerns to some pretty whacky (think soft sciences) ones, running the gamut with more than a little overlap. A lot of those soft science contributions - from psychologists, sociologists and... apparently people actually do call themselves...philosophers - sure seemed to either be lectures on some sort of history or self-promotion. Note to those guys: answer the damn question and stroke your ego on your own time.
Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist, wrote in his essay, “The task of separating the good thoughts from the silly ones is hard, of course, but this is where intelligence matters”. Brockman's editing/selection could have used more intelligence, because we're supposed to be worried about Internet effects on words or declining population or it being too late to stop telling aggressive aliens where we live. On the other hand, there are excellent observations about legitimate concerns over dumbing down of the populace, science illiteracy and similar sentiments.
Despite the odd assortment of WTF? essays, I concurred with many, including problems of "fast knowledge" - (paraphrasing in my words) smart devices make it so we don't have to think/remember; digital tattoos - we're leaving lasting trails of ourselves everyday on the world interconnections; reduction in science knowledge due to social media - “In sum, the science that laypeople encounter will become increasingly unfiltered by scientific experts."; anti-intellectualism; and the rise of stupid.
Always interesting, for the social experiment of scientists and others vying to be included, as well as the content.
March 30, 2016
Edge should be renamed "The Edge of Physics but the Dark Ages of Biology"
Brockman cannot keep claiming to be on the edge of anything if he continues to prioritize fossils like the technophobes, old gene jocks, and the like, while limiting actual progressive scientists from contributing. It's one thing to have 2 sides of a debate. It's another to clearly showcase the old guard who is increasing becoming obsolete, signaling to your younger audience that you, John Brockman, do not know how to keep up with the times.
So many articles should have just been titled, 'Kids these days," or "I just can't get on board with shifting to new paradigms because I am completely stuck in the old way of thinking." How do Fisher and Buss even pass for science these days? A bigger question, how do either of them pass for being on the edge? I don't mind a creative guess or viewpoint. In fact, I LOVED Gilliam's short piece. He didn't pretend his opinions were science. Even Pinker, who seems a bit more scientific than Buss or Fisher, makes sweeping assumptions about current human behaviors in the context of evolutionary time. The worst part, he talks about it as if it's a solid conclusion, like the sort of test results we get from the hard sciences. Pinker, Dawkins, and the rest of the old guard gene jocks are not on the edge of anything. Why keep including, and indeed featuring, these types of fossils when your whole image paints you as being on the "Edge"?
Worse were articles by Sherry Turkle and Noga Arikha. Why does Brockman insist on continuing to feature Turkle while claiming to be on the edge? It's maddening.
I love books that feature essays from many different authors and provide many different view points. For this reason, I keep buying Brockman books, thinking each time that I will just accept the fossil essays because there will be so many new and exciting ideas. But each time, I just become more and more frustrated. I liked that he included Scientists like Lisa Randall and Max Tegmark (2 scientists who constantly hold opposing views), but the progressives were always the physicists. Why not include people whose ideas are more similar to progressives Eva Joblonka, or better yet, Jeremy England? Basically, give us anyone beside the old tired fossils you keeps serving up on a plate that says "Edge."
At the end of the day: Great format, terrible author choices.
Brockman cannot keep claiming to be on the edge of anything if he continues to prioritize fossils like the technophobes, old gene jocks, and the like, while limiting actual progressive scientists from contributing. It's one thing to have 2 sides of a debate. It's another to clearly showcase the old guard who is increasing becoming obsolete, signaling to your younger audience that you, John Brockman, do not know how to keep up with the times.
So many articles should have just been titled, 'Kids these days," or "I just can't get on board with shifting to new paradigms because I am completely stuck in the old way of thinking." How do Fisher and Buss even pass for science these days? A bigger question, how do either of them pass for being on the edge? I don't mind a creative guess or viewpoint. In fact, I LOVED Gilliam's short piece. He didn't pretend his opinions were science. Even Pinker, who seems a bit more scientific than Buss or Fisher, makes sweeping assumptions about current human behaviors in the context of evolutionary time. The worst part, he talks about it as if it's a solid conclusion, like the sort of test results we get from the hard sciences. Pinker, Dawkins, and the rest of the old guard gene jocks are not on the edge of anything. Why keep including, and indeed featuring, these types of fossils when your whole image paints you as being on the "Edge"?
Worse were articles by Sherry Turkle and Noga Arikha. Why does Brockman insist on continuing to feature Turkle while claiming to be on the edge? It's maddening.
I love books that feature essays from many different authors and provide many different view points. For this reason, I keep buying Brockman books, thinking each time that I will just accept the fossil essays because there will be so many new and exciting ideas. But each time, I just become more and more frustrated. I liked that he included Scientists like Lisa Randall and Max Tegmark (2 scientists who constantly hold opposing views), but the progressives were always the physicists. Why not include people whose ideas are more similar to progressives Eva Joblonka, or better yet, Jeremy England? Basically, give us anyone beside the old tired fossils you keeps serving up on a plate that says "Edge."
At the end of the day: Great format, terrible author choices.
August 23, 2019
This is an EdgeBook comprising essays from prominent scientists from 3rd Culture, I'm usually defining as the Leading edge of civilisation in conducting endeavour in responding the 2013 Edge question:
WHAT SHOULD WE BE WORRIED ABOUT?
As stated in Brockman's preface:
"We worry because we are built to anticipate the future. Nothing can stop us from worrying, but science can teach us how to worry better, and when to stop worrying. The respondents to this year’s question were asked to tell us something that (for scientific reasons) worries them—particularly something that doesn’t seem to be on the popular radar yet, and why it should be. Or tell us about something they’ve stopped worrying about even if others still do, and why it should drop off the radar."
The ideas presented on Edge are tentative, speculative; they represent the frontiers in such areas as evolutionary biology, genetics, computer science, neurophysiology, psychology, cosmology, and physics.
This book is intended for the part of species whose faith is in future of our children and survival of humanity.
WHAT SHOULD WE BE WORRIED ABOUT?
As stated in Brockman's preface:
"We worry because we are built to anticipate the future. Nothing can stop us from worrying, but science can teach us how to worry better, and when to stop worrying. The respondents to this year’s question were asked to tell us something that (for scientific reasons) worries them—particularly something that doesn’t seem to be on the popular radar yet, and why it should be. Or tell us about something they’ve stopped worrying about even if others still do, and why it should drop off the radar."
The ideas presented on Edge are tentative, speculative; they represent the frontiers in such areas as evolutionary biology, genetics, computer science, neurophysiology, psychology, cosmology, and physics.
This book is intended for the part of species whose faith is in future of our children and survival of humanity.
August 24, 2018
A portrait of the worst things in the world by some of the cleverest people in it. Loads of people went for the cheap way out and said "We should worry about too much worrying", which is true in one sense but not helpful.
Quality varies: these are the most astonishing bits.
Many of the entries are on far less important matters, but even those are valuable as evidence of expert disagreement / the deep human need for whimsy.
[Free here]
Quality varies: these are the most astonishing bits.
Many of the entries are on far less important matters, but even those are valuable as evidence of expert disagreement / the deep human need for whimsy.
[Free here]
February 26, 2015
This is a collection of very brief essays by a wide variety of thinkers, all responding to the question-of-the-year posed by Edge.org. It makes for highly stimulating reading.
I especially appreciated the brevity of the pieces. Good writers are capable of making very cogent arguments in just a few pages. (And in the case of the ridiculous pieces, I was grateful to be done with them quickly.)
Now I'm quite curious to read more of the volumes in this series.
I especially appreciated the brevity of the pieces. Good writers are capable of making very cogent arguments in just a few pages. (And in the case of the ridiculous pieces, I was grateful to be done with them quickly.)
Now I'm quite curious to read more of the volumes in this series.
March 26, 2014
Hard to give a star rating to this one. Some of the essays are extremely thought provoking, others seem to be circling around the same themes and in ways that are not unique. Worth a look.
April 5, 2020
This was so incredibly interesting to read! I started it years ago but barely made it past page 100 - each response fascinated me to the point where I even based a speech off one of them. I finally returned to reading this book a few days ago and quickly finished the remaining three hundred pages. Although I was tempted to thoroughly investigate each response that brought new ideas to mind (i.e. all of them), I know that I can return at any point for further research.
It was especially interesting to read the contrasting viewpoints of well-respected scientists and thinkers. One section around the middle had almost ten articles on quantum mechanics and fundamental physics, each of which advocated a different view point. And each of which I could barely understand!
It was especially interesting to read the contrasting viewpoints of well-respected scientists and thinkers. One section around the middle had almost ten articles on quantum mechanics and fundamental physics, each of which advocated a different view point. And each of which I could barely understand!
January 24, 2021
A collection of very short essays from scientists and plutocrats in a response to the titular question. I liked the breadth of the answers, however that also made it feel like everyone was just standing on their own soapbox, not really thinking outside their own expertise.
I would've liked a report or transcript of a series of debates or conversations between these people instead.
Some of the essays were so short or so jaded that they didn't amount to anything except the author's book-shout-out. Others were intriguing, insightful and/or original, however reading this as an audiobook, I had too little time to linger or reflect on these points.
I would've liked a report or transcript of a series of debates or conversations between these people instead.
Some of the essays were so short or so jaded that they didn't amount to anything except the author's book-shout-out. Others were intriguing, insightful and/or original, however reading this as an audiobook, I had too little time to linger or reflect on these points.
February 22, 2023
Most of these 200 - 300-word essays are of the form: The Internet is important and complicated. If it breaks, we will all die. The end.
I really hoped this book would be interesting. I tolerated it (i.e. wasted time) as long as I could. I got through about half the book before putting it aside for something interesting. I would not recommend this to anyone.
There were one or two essays that were somewhat enjoyable, but they were still very short and did not explore any topic in depth.
I really hoped this book would be interesting. I tolerated it (i.e. wasted time) as long as I could. I got through about half the book before putting it aside for something interesting. I would not recommend this to anyone.
There were one or two essays that were somewhat enjoyable, but they were still very short and did not explore any topic in depth.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 12, 2018
I admit returning this one to the library. This might be a good one for a coffee table reader. Articles are relatively short without any real common thread running through them, other than "you should worry about this thing." Some of them are interesting, others not.
January 6, 2019
The panel of contributors to this book of short essays is impressive, and many were interesting and worthwhile. But there are so many that weren't interesting or particularly worthwhile, and sorting through these became tedious. It felt like the editor's loyalty was to the submitters and not to the ultimate reader to be selective about what was included.
December 1, 2020
Some of the essays were interesting, but most read like “What’s wrong with kids these days?!” complaints from old people. I also got tired of reading essays with competing theses. Overall, too much opinion and not enough data. Also, I listened to this on audiobook format and was unimpressed with the performance.
May 8, 2020
2020.05.05–2020.05.08
Contents
Brockman J (ed.) (2014) (13:53) What Should We Be Worried About? - Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night
Dedication
Acknowledgments
Preface: The Edge Question
001. Steven Pinker :: The Real Risk Factors for War
002. Vernor Vinge :: MADness
003. Martin Rees :: We Are in Denial About Catastrophic Risks
004. Daniel C. Dennett :: Living Without the Internet for a Couple of Weeks
005. George Dyson :: Safe Mode for the Internet
006. Randolph Nesse :: The Fragility of Complex Systems
007. Seirian Sumner :: A Synthetic World
008. Timo Hannay :: What is Conscious?
009. Max Tegmark :: Will There Be a Singularity Within Our Lifetime?
010. Bruce Sterling :: “The Singularity”: There’s No There There
011. Charles Seife :: Capture
012. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi :: The Triumph of the Virtual
013. Nicholas G. Carr :: The Patience Deficit
014. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore :: The Teenage Brain
015. Benjamin Bergen :: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Words?
016. Paul Saffo :: The Contest Between Engineers and Druids
017. Evgeny Morozov :: “Smart”
018. David Pizarro :: The Stifling of Technological Progress
019. Tim O’reilly :: The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism and the End of Progress
020. Timothy Taylor :: Armageddon
021. Matt Ridley :: Superstition
022. Gregory Benford :: Rats in a Spherical Trap
023. Seth Shostak :: The Danger from Aliens
024. William Poundstone :: Augmented Reality
025. Steven Strogatz :: Too Much Coupling
026. Scott Atran :: Homogenization of the Human Experience
027. P. Murali Doraiswamy :: Are We Homogenizing the Global View of a Normal Mind?
028. Marcel Kinsbourne :: Social Media: The More Together, The More Alone
029. David Gelernter :: Internet Drivel
030. Sherry Turkle :: Objects of Desire
031. John Naughton :: Incompetent Systems
032. Dylan Evans :: Democracy Is Like the Appendix
033. Michael Shermer :: The Is-Ought Fallacy of Science and Morality
034. David Christian :: What Is a Good Life?
035. Satyajit Das :: A World Without Growth?
036. Laurence C. Smith :: Human Population, Prosperity Growth: One I Fear, One I Don’t
037. Kevin Kelly :: The Underpopulation Bomb
038. Tor Nørretranders :: The Loss of Lust
039. Rodney A. Brooks :: Not Enough Robots
040. William McEwan :: That We Won’t Make Use of the Error Catastrophe Threshold
041. Helena Cronin :: A Fearful Asymmetry: The Worrying World of a Would-Be Science
042. Dan Sperber :: Misplaced Worries
043. Virginia Heffernan :: There Is Nothing to Worry About, and There Never Was
044. Donald D. Hoffman :: Worries on the Mystery of Worry
045. Barbara Strauch :: The Disconnect
046. Michael I. Norton :: Science by (Social) Media
047. John Tooby :: Unfriendly Physics, Monsters from the Id, and Self-Organizing Collective Delusions
048. Helen Fisher :: Myths About Men
049. David M. Buss :: The Mating Wars
050. Brian Eno :: We Don’t Do Politics
051. Seth Lloyd :: The Black Hole of Finance
052. W. Daniel Hillis :: The Opinions of Search Engines
053. David Bodanis :: Technology-Generated Fascism
054. Neil Gershenfeld :: Magic
055. David Rowan :: Data Disenfranchisement
056. Lisa Randall :: Big Experiments Won’t Happen
057. Peter Woit :: The Nightmare Scenario for Fundamental Physics
058. Amanda Gefter :: No Surprises from the LHC: No Worries for Theoretical Physics
059. Steve Giddings :: Crisis at the Foundations of Physics
060. Mario Livio :: The End of Fundamental Science?
061. Lee Smolin :: Quantum Mechanics
062. Lawrence M. Krauss :: One Universe
063. Carlo Rovelli :: The Dangerous Fascination of Imagination
064. J. Craig Venter :: What—Me Worry?
065. Esther Dyson :: Our Increased Medical Know-How
066. Andrian Kreye :: The Promise of Catharsis
067. Terry Gilliam :: I’ve Given up Worrying
068. Daniel Goleman :: Our Blind Spots
069. Jennifer Jacquet :: The Anthropocebo Effect
070. Hans Ulrich Obrist :: The Relative Obscurity of the Writings of Édouard Glissant
071. Robert Sapolsky :: The Danger of Inadvertently Praising Zygomatic Arches
072. Howard Gardner :: The Belief or Lack of Belief in Free Will Is Not a Scientific Matter
073. Antony Garrett Lisi :: Natural Death
074. Kate Jeffery :: The Loss of Death
075. David Berreby :: Global Graying
076. Robert Kurzban :: All the T in China
077. Haim Harari :: Technology May Endanger Democracy
078. Bruce Parker :: The Fourth Culture
079. Eduardo Salcedo-Albarán :: Classic Social Sciences’ Failure to Understand “Modern” States Shaped by Crime
080. Andrew Lih :: Is the New Public Sphere . . . Public?
081. Frank Wilczek :: Blown Opportunities
082. Sam Harris :: The Power of Bad Incentives
083. Marco Iacoboni :: Science Publishing
084. Eric R. Weinstein :: Excellence
085. Jessica L. Tracy :: Unmitigated Arrogance
086. Roger Highfield :: The Decline of the Scientific Hero
087. Michael Vassar :: Authoritarian Submission
088. Gino Segre :: Are We Becoming Too Connected?
089. Arianna Huffington :: Stress
090. Joseph Ledoux :: Putting Our Anxieties to Work
091. Xeni Jardin :: Science Has Not Brought Us Closer to Understanding Cancer
092. Aubrey de Grey :: Society’s Parlous Inability to Reason About Uncertainty
093. Eric J. Topol, M.D. :: The Rise in Genomic Instability
094. Azra Raza, M.D. :: Current Sequencing Strategies Ignore the Role of Microorganisms in Cancer
095. Terrence J. Sejnowski :: The Failure of Genomics for Mental Disorders
096. Stuart Firestein :: Exaggerated Expectations
097. Susan Blackmore :: Losing Our Hands
098. Christine Finn :: Losing Touch
099. Scott Sampson :: The Human/Nature Divide
100. Bruce Schneier :: Power and the Internet
101. Kai Krause :: Close to the Edge
102. Rolf Dobelli :: The Paradox of Material Progress
103. Ursula Martin :: Close Observation and Description
104. Bruce Hood :: Impact
105. Giulio Boccaletti :: The Complex, Consequential, Not-So-Easy Decisions About Our Water Resources
106. Stuart A. Kauffman :: Children of Newton and Modernity
107. Victoria Stodden :: Where Did You Get That Fact?
108. Douglas T. Kenrick :: Is Idiocracy Looming?
109. Gavin Schmidt :: The Disconnect Between News and Understanding
110. Andy Clark :: Super-AIs Won’t Rule the World (Unless They Get Culture First)
111. David Dalrymple :: Posthuman Geography
112. Ed Regis :: Being Told That Our Destiny Is Among the Stars
113. Margaret Levi :: Communities of Fate
114. Stephen M. Kosslyn, Robin S. Rosenberg :: Working with Others
115. Daniel Haun :: Global Cooperation Is Failing and We Don’t Know Why
116. Karl Sabbagh :: The Behavior of Normal People
117. Brian Knutson :: Metaworry
118. Joel Gold :: Morbid Anxiety
119. Douglas Rushkoff :: The Loss of Our Collective Cognition and Awareness
120. Alison Gopnik :: Worrying About Children
121. Keith Devlin :: The Death of Mathematics
122. Clifford Pickover :: Should We Worry About Being Unable to Understand Everything?
123. Daniel L. Everett :: The Demise of the Scholar
124. Colin Tudge :: Science Is in Danger of Becoming the Enemy of Humankind
125. Tania Lombrozo :: Illusions of Understanding and the Loss of Intellectual Humility
126. Adam Alter :: The End of Hardship Inoculation
127. Larry Sanger :: Internet Silos
128. Gary Klein :: The New Age of Anxiety
129. Dave Winer :: Does the Human Species Have the Will to Survive?
130. Melanie Swan :: Neural Data Privacy Rights
131. Stanislas Dehaene :: Can They Read My Brain?
132. Anton Zeilinger :: Losing Completeness
133. Simon Baron-Cohen :: C. P. Snow’s Two Cultures and the Nature-Nurture Debate
134. Nicholas A. Christakis :: The Unavoidable Intrusion of Sociopolitical Forces into Science
135. Leo M. Chalupa :: The Growing Gap Between the Scientific Elite and the Vast “Scientifically Challenged” Majority
136. Noga Arikha :: Present-ism
137. Kirsten Bomblies :: Do We Understand the Dynamics of Our Emerging Global Culture?
138. Jonathan Gottschall :: We Worry Too Much About Fictional Violence
139. Peter Schwartz :: A World of Cascading Crises
140. Stephon H. Alexander :: Who Gets to Play in the Science Ballpark
141. Thomas Metzinger :: An Exploding Number of New Illegal Drugs
142. Paul Kedrosky :: History and Contingency
143. Gary Marcus :: Unknown Unknowns
144. Juan Enriquez :: Digital Tats
145. Nicholas Humphrey :: Fast Knowledge
146. Mary Catherine Bateson :: Systematic Thinking About How We Package Our Worries
147. Roger Schank :: Worrying About Stupid
148. Luca De Biase :: The Cultural and Cognitive Consequences of Electronics
149. Nassim Nicholas Taleb :: What We Learn From Firefighters: How Fat Are the Fat Tails?
150. Bart Kosko :: Lamplight Probabilities
151. Richard Foreman :: The World As We Know It
152. James J. O’donnell :: Worrying—the Modern Passion
153. Robert Provine :: The Gift of Worry
Notes
Index
Contents
Brockman J (ed.) (2014) (13:53) What Should We Be Worried About? - Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night
Dedication
Acknowledgments
Preface: The Edge Question
001. Steven Pinker :: The Real Risk Factors for War
002. Vernor Vinge :: MADness
003. Martin Rees :: We Are in Denial About Catastrophic Risks
004. Daniel C. Dennett :: Living Without the Internet for a Couple of Weeks
005. George Dyson :: Safe Mode for the Internet
006. Randolph Nesse :: The Fragility of Complex Systems
007. Seirian Sumner :: A Synthetic World
008. Timo Hannay :: What is Conscious?
009. Max Tegmark :: Will There Be a Singularity Within Our Lifetime?
010. Bruce Sterling :: “The Singularity”: There’s No There There
011. Charles Seife :: Capture
012. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi :: The Triumph of the Virtual
013. Nicholas G. Carr :: The Patience Deficit
014. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore :: The Teenage Brain
015. Benjamin Bergen :: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Words?
016. Paul Saffo :: The Contest Between Engineers and Druids
017. Evgeny Morozov :: “Smart”
018. David Pizarro :: The Stifling of Technological Progress
019. Tim O’reilly :: The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism and the End of Progress
020. Timothy Taylor :: Armageddon
021. Matt Ridley :: Superstition
022. Gregory Benford :: Rats in a Spherical Trap
023. Seth Shostak :: The Danger from Aliens
024. William Poundstone :: Augmented Reality
025. Steven Strogatz :: Too Much Coupling
026. Scott Atran :: Homogenization of the Human Experience
027. P. Murali Doraiswamy :: Are We Homogenizing the Global View of a Normal Mind?
028. Marcel Kinsbourne :: Social Media: The More Together, The More Alone
029. David Gelernter :: Internet Drivel
030. Sherry Turkle :: Objects of Desire
031. John Naughton :: Incompetent Systems
032. Dylan Evans :: Democracy Is Like the Appendix
033. Michael Shermer :: The Is-Ought Fallacy of Science and Morality
034. David Christian :: What Is a Good Life?
035. Satyajit Das :: A World Without Growth?
036. Laurence C. Smith :: Human Population, Prosperity Growth: One I Fear, One I Don’t
037. Kevin Kelly :: The Underpopulation Bomb
038. Tor Nørretranders :: The Loss of Lust
039. Rodney A. Brooks :: Not Enough Robots
040. William McEwan :: That We Won’t Make Use of the Error Catastrophe Threshold
041. Helena Cronin :: A Fearful Asymmetry: The Worrying World of a Would-Be Science
042. Dan Sperber :: Misplaced Worries
043. Virginia Heffernan :: There Is Nothing to Worry About, and There Never Was
044. Donald D. Hoffman :: Worries on the Mystery of Worry
045. Barbara Strauch :: The Disconnect
046. Michael I. Norton :: Science by (Social) Media
047. John Tooby :: Unfriendly Physics, Monsters from the Id, and Self-Organizing Collective Delusions
048. Helen Fisher :: Myths About Men
049. David M. Buss :: The Mating Wars
050. Brian Eno :: We Don’t Do Politics
051. Seth Lloyd :: The Black Hole of Finance
052. W. Daniel Hillis :: The Opinions of Search Engines
053. David Bodanis :: Technology-Generated Fascism
054. Neil Gershenfeld :: Magic
055. David Rowan :: Data Disenfranchisement
056. Lisa Randall :: Big Experiments Won’t Happen
057. Peter Woit :: The Nightmare Scenario for Fundamental Physics
058. Amanda Gefter :: No Surprises from the LHC: No Worries for Theoretical Physics
059. Steve Giddings :: Crisis at the Foundations of Physics
060. Mario Livio :: The End of Fundamental Science?
061. Lee Smolin :: Quantum Mechanics
062. Lawrence M. Krauss :: One Universe
063. Carlo Rovelli :: The Dangerous Fascination of Imagination
064. J. Craig Venter :: What—Me Worry?
065. Esther Dyson :: Our Increased Medical Know-How
066. Andrian Kreye :: The Promise of Catharsis
067. Terry Gilliam :: I’ve Given up Worrying
068. Daniel Goleman :: Our Blind Spots
069. Jennifer Jacquet :: The Anthropocebo Effect
070. Hans Ulrich Obrist :: The Relative Obscurity of the Writings of Édouard Glissant
071. Robert Sapolsky :: The Danger of Inadvertently Praising Zygomatic Arches
072. Howard Gardner :: The Belief or Lack of Belief in Free Will Is Not a Scientific Matter
073. Antony Garrett Lisi :: Natural Death
074. Kate Jeffery :: The Loss of Death
075. David Berreby :: Global Graying
076. Robert Kurzban :: All the T in China
077. Haim Harari :: Technology May Endanger Democracy
078. Bruce Parker :: The Fourth Culture
079. Eduardo Salcedo-Albarán :: Classic Social Sciences’ Failure to Understand “Modern” States Shaped by Crime
080. Andrew Lih :: Is the New Public Sphere . . . Public?
081. Frank Wilczek :: Blown Opportunities
082. Sam Harris :: The Power of Bad Incentives
083. Marco Iacoboni :: Science Publishing
084. Eric R. Weinstein :: Excellence
085. Jessica L. Tracy :: Unmitigated Arrogance
086. Roger Highfield :: The Decline of the Scientific Hero
087. Michael Vassar :: Authoritarian Submission
088. Gino Segre :: Are We Becoming Too Connected?
089. Arianna Huffington :: Stress
090. Joseph Ledoux :: Putting Our Anxieties to Work
091. Xeni Jardin :: Science Has Not Brought Us Closer to Understanding Cancer
092. Aubrey de Grey :: Society’s Parlous Inability to Reason About Uncertainty
093. Eric J. Topol, M.D. :: The Rise in Genomic Instability
094. Azra Raza, M.D. :: Current Sequencing Strategies Ignore the Role of Microorganisms in Cancer
095. Terrence J. Sejnowski :: The Failure of Genomics for Mental Disorders
096. Stuart Firestein :: Exaggerated Expectations
097. Susan Blackmore :: Losing Our Hands
098. Christine Finn :: Losing Touch
099. Scott Sampson :: The Human/Nature Divide
100. Bruce Schneier :: Power and the Internet
101. Kai Krause :: Close to the Edge
102. Rolf Dobelli :: The Paradox of Material Progress
103. Ursula Martin :: Close Observation and Description
104. Bruce Hood :: Impact
105. Giulio Boccaletti :: The Complex, Consequential, Not-So-Easy Decisions About Our Water Resources
106. Stuart A. Kauffman :: Children of Newton and Modernity
107. Victoria Stodden :: Where Did You Get That Fact?
108. Douglas T. Kenrick :: Is Idiocracy Looming?
109. Gavin Schmidt :: The Disconnect Between News and Understanding
110. Andy Clark :: Super-AIs Won’t Rule the World (Unless They Get Culture First)
111. David Dalrymple :: Posthuman Geography
112. Ed Regis :: Being Told That Our Destiny Is Among the Stars
113. Margaret Levi :: Communities of Fate
114. Stephen M. Kosslyn, Robin S. Rosenberg :: Working with Others
115. Daniel Haun :: Global Cooperation Is Failing and We Don’t Know Why
116. Karl Sabbagh :: The Behavior of Normal People
117. Brian Knutson :: Metaworry
118. Joel Gold :: Morbid Anxiety
119. Douglas Rushkoff :: The Loss of Our Collective Cognition and Awareness
120. Alison Gopnik :: Worrying About Children
121. Keith Devlin :: The Death of Mathematics
122. Clifford Pickover :: Should We Worry About Being Unable to Understand Everything?
123. Daniel L. Everett :: The Demise of the Scholar
124. Colin Tudge :: Science Is in Danger of Becoming the Enemy of Humankind
125. Tania Lombrozo :: Illusions of Understanding and the Loss of Intellectual Humility
126. Adam Alter :: The End of Hardship Inoculation
127. Larry Sanger :: Internet Silos
128. Gary Klein :: The New Age of Anxiety
129. Dave Winer :: Does the Human Species Have the Will to Survive?
130. Melanie Swan :: Neural Data Privacy Rights
131. Stanislas Dehaene :: Can They Read My Brain?
132. Anton Zeilinger :: Losing Completeness
133. Simon Baron-Cohen :: C. P. Snow’s Two Cultures and the Nature-Nurture Debate
134. Nicholas A. Christakis :: The Unavoidable Intrusion of Sociopolitical Forces into Science
135. Leo M. Chalupa :: The Growing Gap Between the Scientific Elite and the Vast “Scientifically Challenged” Majority
136. Noga Arikha :: Present-ism
137. Kirsten Bomblies :: Do We Understand the Dynamics of Our Emerging Global Culture?
138. Jonathan Gottschall :: We Worry Too Much About Fictional Violence
139. Peter Schwartz :: A World of Cascading Crises
140. Stephon H. Alexander :: Who Gets to Play in the Science Ballpark
141. Thomas Metzinger :: An Exploding Number of New Illegal Drugs
142. Paul Kedrosky :: History and Contingency
143. Gary Marcus :: Unknown Unknowns
144. Juan Enriquez :: Digital Tats
145. Nicholas Humphrey :: Fast Knowledge
146. Mary Catherine Bateson :: Systematic Thinking About How We Package Our Worries
147. Roger Schank :: Worrying About Stupid
148. Luca De Biase :: The Cultural and Cognitive Consequences of Electronics
149. Nassim Nicholas Taleb :: What We Learn From Firefighters: How Fat Are the Fat Tails?
150. Bart Kosko :: Lamplight Probabilities
151. Richard Foreman :: The World As We Know It
152. James J. O’donnell :: Worrying—the Modern Passion
153. Robert Provine :: The Gift of Worry
Notes
Index
April 28, 2015
As an editorial assistant in graduate school, I was sometimes asked to put together symposium papers in a logical way that made them seem as if they were planned to go together in a published volume. That is not an easy task, even when the papers are supposedly about the same topic. Brockman has done an admirable job of thematic sequencing in this compendium of brief essays in which a variety of "experts" attempt to answer the titular question. The essays are uneven in quality, as is to be expected, and there are some real yawners among them (e.g., Steven Pinker's "The Real Risk Factors for War"). Nevertheless, reading through the whole volume gives one a gestalt understanding of the significant issues occupying some interesting and influential minds. Of course, one comes away with the nagging feeling that no one really knows what we should be worried about, given our relatively short time on Earth as a species. The geological record certainly presents some unsettling evidence about past and repeated cataclysms that could occur again. But even in the brief window of human history we have example after example of people worrying about a variety of things while the thing that does them in is not even a cloud on the horizon of their consciousness. The message I came away with is to be aware of the concerning trends without obsessing about them and always keep an eye out for Black Swans.
April 21, 2014
With over one hundred scientist/thinkers represented in these pages, a reader can't be blamed for picking and choosing among the potential disasters for mankind. Should I worry about some sub-atomic disaster -- or should I worry that scientists aren't studying (and governments aren't funding) sub-atomics more? Maybe I should worry about psycho-social issues. May I should just worry about worry in general.
Each of these authors is highly specialized in their various fields of expertise, so naturally they'll have their own particular nightmares. One author mentioned that he (mostly, they're men) made a distinction in the fundamental question: What we should be worried about is different from what we are worried about. Probably a question of immediacy for most. Harder for me to get worked up about the failure to construct the Superconducting Super Collider, than to fret about global homogenization, for example.
Most of the the essayists have authored some interesting-sounding books, though, so now I'm worried I won't have enough time to read them.
Each of these authors is highly specialized in their various fields of expertise, so naturally they'll have their own particular nightmares. One author mentioned that he (mostly, they're men) made a distinction in the fundamental question: What we should be worried about is different from what we are worried about. Probably a question of immediacy for most. Harder for me to get worked up about the failure to construct the Superconducting Super Collider, than to fret about global homogenization, for example.
Most of the the essayists have authored some interesting-sounding books, though, so now I'm worried I won't have enough time to read them.
July 19, 2014
This is actually a very interesting book, and I'm only knocking off a star for me personally. Quite honestly, some of the essays were just a bit over my head, either mathematically or philosophically. Still, I would rate many of the individual essays as A or A+.
John Brockman runs a website called edge.org, which is loaded with thought-provoking writings by some pretty impressive minds in a wide range of disciplines. Once a year, he invites these minds to answer a question, and he combines their answers into a book. This year's question was, "What Should We Be Worried About?" Brockman groups the questions into general categories, depending on the nature of the response. There are essays on everything from climate change, water resources, war, economic concerns, the coming decline of population rates, the state of publishing results in the science world, the exploding number of newly and illegally created psychoactive drugs, unmitigated arrogance, popular culture interfering with science, worries about worrying and many more topics.
Overall fascinating, if a bit overwhelming.
John Brockman runs a website called edge.org, which is loaded with thought-provoking writings by some pretty impressive minds in a wide range of disciplines. Once a year, he invites these minds to answer a question, and he combines their answers into a book. This year's question was, "What Should We Be Worried About?" Brockman groups the questions into general categories, depending on the nature of the response. There are essays on everything from climate change, water resources, war, economic concerns, the coming decline of population rates, the state of publishing results in the science world, the exploding number of newly and illegally created psychoactive drugs, unmitigated arrogance, popular culture interfering with science, worries about worrying and many more topics.
Overall fascinating, if a bit overwhelming.
January 2, 2022
War over water.
The ability to reflect and be silent.
Suffering and sadness no longer being seen as part of a process of spiritual growth and resilience but rather an opportunity for Western pharmaceutical companies to market medication to the masses.
Children fearful of face to face conversation and the practice of dealing with other people as they grow up with screens.
Dramatic increase in the older generations with simultaneous decrease in births.
40 % of world's teenagers have no access to secondary education.
The death of mathematical thinking due to calculators.
Inability to be patient due to increasing speed of technology.
Disabilities due to technology: hearing loss, carpal tunnel, obesity.
The ability to reflect and be silent.
Suffering and sadness no longer being seen as part of a process of spiritual growth and resilience but rather an opportunity for Western pharmaceutical companies to market medication to the masses.
Children fearful of face to face conversation and the practice of dealing with other people as they grow up with screens.
Dramatic increase in the older generations with simultaneous decrease in births.
40 % of world's teenagers have no access to secondary education.
The death of mathematical thinking due to calculators.
Inability to be patient due to increasing speed of technology.
Disabilities due to technology: hearing loss, carpal tunnel, obesity.
October 7, 2015
While I found this very good, it was less satisfying than most Brockman-curated efforts. The theme necessitated a lot of hand-wringing from the contributors, and some of them sounded far more crotchety than others. Still very interesting, but my least favorite Brockman collection out of all those I have read thus far.
October 16, 2016
I wish i had accepted Jimmy's review and moved on to other books.
It's hard to disagree with most of the essays, very few new ideas can be learned.
It's hard to disagree with most of the essays, very few new ideas can be learned.
July 20, 2017
I started this book in November of last year. The fact that it took me nine months to read isn’t due to the length, but because I got so bored I put it down and went off to read other things. I may not have picked it up again but I devised a strategy to get me over the line.
In the end, I got this finished by looking at the titles and reading a few words of the remaining essays and listing the ones I felt were worthy of my time. I cut roughly 200 pages to about 54. That’s the sort of editing Brockman should have done.
Some essays were obviously a waste of time. Take the entry from Dave Winer, which is an entire 60 words in length. Why was it even included? And this is far from the only pointless entry.
What I was expecting, from the title and the description, was informed pieces by leading experts who were trying to highlight some of the concerns that give them sleepless nights. I was expecting pieces on climate change, AI, water shortages, food wars, nanotechnology, antibiotic resistance and a bunch of things I’d never even considered (declining R&D spending, for example).
That’s not what this book is though. Sure, there are some of those things, but largely it appears to have given the authors a forum to express whatever bugbear they happen to have been thinking about at the time. There’s a moving one about breast cancer, by a woman who is suffering from it, that simply bemoans a lack of progress in two decades.
There are essays on our understanding of consciousness, the teenage brain, the ‘loss of lust,’ the ‘homogenization of the human experience,’ living without the internet for a couple of weeks and stress. These are hardly potential civilisation enders, or likely to affect the entire population.
Even those that did actually fit the book’s description were pretty pointless as there’s no space to go into any depth. The format would have been better served by cutting the ideas down to a dozen and exploring them in more detail.
So, if what you’re interested in is learning more about the ‘hidden threats’ we face, this is not the book for you. If you’re interested in a soapbox where random people tell you about their current project (many of which don’t seem to warrant study) then you’re in luck.
In the end, I got this finished by looking at the titles and reading a few words of the remaining essays and listing the ones I felt were worthy of my time. I cut roughly 200 pages to about 54. That’s the sort of editing Brockman should have done.
Some essays were obviously a waste of time. Take the entry from Dave Winer, which is an entire 60 words in length. Why was it even included? And this is far from the only pointless entry.
What I was expecting, from the title and the description, was informed pieces by leading experts who were trying to highlight some of the concerns that give them sleepless nights. I was expecting pieces on climate change, AI, water shortages, food wars, nanotechnology, antibiotic resistance and a bunch of things I’d never even considered (declining R&D spending, for example).
That’s not what this book is though. Sure, there are some of those things, but largely it appears to have given the authors a forum to express whatever bugbear they happen to have been thinking about at the time. There’s a moving one about breast cancer, by a woman who is suffering from it, that simply bemoans a lack of progress in two decades.
There are essays on our understanding of consciousness, the teenage brain, the ‘loss of lust,’ the ‘homogenization of the human experience,’ living without the internet for a couple of weeks and stress. These are hardly potential civilisation enders, or likely to affect the entire population.
Even those that did actually fit the book’s description were pretty pointless as there’s no space to go into any depth. The format would have been better served by cutting the ideas down to a dozen and exploring them in more detail.
So, if what you’re interested in is learning more about the ‘hidden threats’ we face, this is not the book for you. If you’re interested in a soapbox where random people tell you about their current project (many of which don’t seem to warrant study) then you’re in luck.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 165 reviews