Yes as a kid that remembers the end tail-end of the sixties and beyond the “You are here” iconic poster resonates. Elaborating from there are on a cost/benefit analysis approach is a very good start. We all have skin in the game of existence don’t we?
On a further note I think the sensing of red and green analogy would be better if you harkened back to the red/blue colors from the Matrix pill analogy (at least the colors not the meaning). The reason the Mandalorian did so well (I heard Star Wars isn’t your thing) was all the throwbacks that go back to the earliest films greatest hits. All your books are relevant collectively to summarizing your personal dharma. We are not getting younger everyday but don’t look at this as a complete bookend but more a spiritual-based movement.
Does it get and hold your attention?
Absolutely. I think you are pointing out the milestones in evolution. Whether early man using a club as a tool for dominance in 2001: A Space Oddessy or the stages of human development like the futurist Toffler stated that the agricultural age, Industrial Age and information/technology age are highly relevant. Listing a 1-2-3 approach is pretty effective.
If not, what might be a better way to start the book?
I don’t question my ability to get through a book especially when written by you. I do question the ability of a younger audience unless spiritually seeking to have the attention span. I’m not exactly sure how to be hip in the third quarter of life. But throwbacks of the era of the sixties and seventies which you were about 13 years old seems to resound to the younger crowd. Perhaps frame things from the wisdom of cultural change in the sixties because it is relevant to changes in today’s world. I’m guessing that living in that era can make you a wise sage.
What parts of this didn’t you like/understand?
I didn’t think it was an awful first attempt. I’d resist the urge to assume that any first attempt should go into the dustbin.
What parts do you think were missing?
For an opening chapter I think it covered the bases on how you see the world. Your job is to go deeper into the concepts and as I said be a futurist. This one of the reasons I have a deep passion for Blade Runner with its dystopian vision of the world. It has elements of an exhausted eco-system and healthy people leaving in mass exodus.
And (especially if you basically like it as a way to start a book) what would you want the next chapter to be about?
I think you might consider the next chapter to be about the current state of affairs. Where we have arrived to a decision fork in the crossroads. There is a point perhaps later but not in the next chapter but midway where you may have to put on a futurist perspective to relay both an envisioned good or bad scenario moving forward. How will the future world look? Will it be utopian or an Idiocracy? How does industry look to resolve a greedy capitalist society versus sharing in success?
The first pages of a book need to grab me to shake me out of my inertia. This created enough interest that I would buy your book. But then again, I probably would have anyway ... I definitely like the potential promise of a less un-enlightened life!
Good start. I like the direction. You lost me halfway through, because we were talking about size and measurement, and then we weren't and then we were talking about creating a global community (hooray! I agree). I'm not sure I felt shock nor inclined to disagree, which was my first flag for something to notice. When I don't feel skepticism, I turn skeptical.
Because I've been thinking about just this trajectory yesterday (good cross-influence, if you ask me), I'll share some of my thoughts, as well as a handful of the resources I've been running across.
My concern this weekend was about the "deal" we've made as humans to say that human progress equals technological progress. At university, I studied a good deal of art, a good deal of technology and a smattering about our social context and how to write. Somehow I managed to get a true liberal arts education while focusing on some depth of art and technology. Throughout that time, I've been troubled by the idea that technology roughly means "the study of how to do things" and yet we use it as a stand-in to mean anything from "my smartphone" to "that computer" to "the traffic lights at Van Ness and Broadway" to "paper" and "books." The word and what it infers is so broad as to be meaningless and yet it clutters our days and discussions.
After hearing a friend talk a little bit about work she's doing in regenerative agriculture (helping farmers in Latin America move from a slash-and-burn approach to creating more coffee farms to growing and distributing spices that are more-native to the land), I started to get the inkling that perhaps agriculture (the part you left out after "hunter-gatherer") was really the peak of human existence. Or, in milder terms, we've been raising crops for a good several thousands of years, but we only have several hundreds of years using and understanding the new tools we've created. Let's start with Eyptian pyramids and Roman concrete as a starting point – there's a ton of other neat inventions earlier than that, but those are the more popular ones I can think of now. Most of this stuff required or assumed slavery in some way. I'm not sure (but I could be wrong), that we have a long history of slavery when humans are able and encouraged to grow their own food. Or, as a different friend reminds, government violence operates best once you "lock the food up."
Those are my thoughts at the moment. Your introduction reminded me of these resources:
* The internet informs me that my taste is terrible and that I ought to feel ashamed for reading a book that describes not only human evolution, but also historical fiction on the evolution of sex and sexuality. Personally, I find that there are interesting questions posed and a decent recalling of the evolution of humans as a species. Everything is contested ground these days. See "The Revolt of the Public" for a decent framing of that.
Your use of the words "moral" and "morality" is inaccurate. What constitutes morality is not carved in stone but varies according to one's cultural context. Mores are commonly-agreed-on standards; for instance, some cultures frown on polygamy and others accept it. The terms you're looking for are "ethical" and "ethics." Standards of ethical conduct are not limited to a specific time and/or place.
As an invitation to participate in mutual apocalypse avoidance, the idea that we are "special" seems to me to be part of the problem. The fact that we don't know--and may never know--whether there is sentient life elsewhere (and chances are good that there is) does not permit us to assume uniqueness. This notion of the uniqueness of humankind, with respect not just to life elsewhere in the universe but also to all the rest of earth's myriad species, is fundamental to the "religions of the book" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and has for millennia given us carte blanche to wreak havoc on anything or anyone that isn't human. "Special" reeks of arrogance and entitlement, precisely what we as a species must move away from--or go extinct. The image of the individual human as a mere speck amid the countless stars should evoke profound humility, not its opposite. Personally, I have long felt that the human mind is an aberration, an evolutionary misstep or, at best, an experiment gone awry.
Finally, as a writer, it helps to give the reader something specific, concrete, and compelling, to engage him or her at the outset. A story, if you will, that illustrates the point you wish to make. If your book were a video production, "you are here" could provide that hook, but in this case I think you need to consider a less abstract opening.
great stuff Bob. I think the key to hooking an enthusiastic readership is the pointer towards happiness. We would all be happier if the apocalypse could be averted; happier if more people could be persuaded to live virtuously, especially our political leaders; happier if we were not so obviously destroying the planet and with it a viable future for humanity. The problem is that happiness is perceived by the cynical as some soft amorphous concept far removed from harsh present reality, remote and unachievable instead of immediate and definitely obtainable. If you can trace a 'realistic' path from present dysfunction to future non-zero sum global happiness, then it's job done, apocalypse averted. I think you've made a great start by placing us in context in time and space. Providing context gives perspective, which helps make positive choices. Just carry on. A slim volume for teenagers, a more substantial one for grown-ups and an unexpurgated tome for the oldies - why not all three ?
Nice go at it. I think you commit an error that bothers me about our society generally right now, including what is being called “the woke.” You jumped so quickly to the moral and spiritual issues. I think that’s a problem of our time. It seems like to me the starting point to the solution is to find a way to agree on the facts first, then it’s easier to even define the moral issues. To start , it would be helpful to agree with the fact that we did evolve here in the way science tells us, and that evolution gave us some harmful/dangerous tendencies (including short sightedness, tribalism ...) and agree with the fact that we are heating up the planet in an unsustainable way ... If everyone thought as rationally as you do, Bob, then the problem would be much easier to solve. Instead we have masses believing the end of times is shaping up. We have masses who believe Allah has his own designs on our future. Not to pin all the irrationality on religion but it’s the easiest way to make the point.
Isn’t the start of the solution to change the way people THINK not to change their morals when they don’t even agree with your premise?
OK. Since contributors to the discussion seem to be having so much concern about Bob being able to just get people started reading the book because in its suggested form (remember, it's just a draft idea!) it would turn off many because it’s too… pedantic, obscure, academic, or whatever, I’ll join the “fun” and throw out a suggestion—a little out of the box, maybe—that might get around some of these concerns and snag a broader audience.
Start with a story. Bob sort of did that in Why Buddhism Is True, with a reference to The Matrix, but this would be more extensive and structurally part of the book. Stories are a great hook for any interest level of a reader: be it factual, fiction, or mixture. And it’s been the basis of entertainment and learning for humankind ever since the beginning of language—and still is. So why not purposely use it here?
For example, the first thing a reader would see is a story (no distracting Introduction—leave that to the cover and sales page blurbs) that starts with a focal character personally involved with some activity that is an element(s) covered in the book, such as her house being washed away by more frequent floods, losing a job due to vulnerabilities of the global economy, facing a new pandemic, cyberwarfare shutting off the electricity—the usual stuff. The more real the character and situation is, the more chance the reader will get hooked and want to read more, including the ensuing discussion about how it is part of the whole intent of the book. Entertainment is the hook, which slides into education—the essence of all good storytelling around the tribal campfire.
Now, this could be a long story at the beginning with lots of elements in it, but I would suggest that it might be a better tactic to keep a reader’s interest in the whole book if a new story (or it could be a continuation of the beginning story, with a new focus) started each new unit. It would be a story that introduced the unit’s focus by having the focal character struggling in a situation that exemplified that focus. Then, the shift would be on to the significance of what was happening to the character and his family as it relates to the book’s message, and what needs to be done personally and institutionally.
The same process of storytelling and explanation would repeat throughout the book. The function of the story would be to make it something realistic with which the reader could identify and Bob could refer back to as an example in his explanation sections, reinforcing the points he wanted to make. The stories for each unit don’t have to be just fiction or just factual but could be factual in one, fiction in another, mixed in another, etc. Whatever works to get the point across. In fact, new mini-stories could be brought up as examples in the explanations to add realism and facts. Bob is used to doing that in his writing anyway, so no sweat. Right?
There are lots of opportunities for creativity here, and it may be a great way to reach the broad audience that all of us are concerned about. Now, going beyond the book format, this storytelling element easily lends itself to doing the same messaging in video format—fiction and documentary stories. Director Bob, anyone?
Normally, I'd go to the library to the New Non-Fiction and pick out a book if the title intrigued me.
Apocalypse Aversion Project, definitely, would do this. I'd read the jacket, then the introduction, your intro such as it is, also would be intriguing. Can't wait for the finished product.
The idea that by doing what feels good to me might actually save the planet? We create our world every day by our actions. We are evolving, be part of the evolution. I'm with that.
You seem optimistic and boy, can I use some optimism now, so that's a plus.
Do you have a particular audience in mind? Everyone needs to be in on this and I don't think now is the time to be particular.
A next chapter detailing what a global community would look like makes sense and ought to include what it is that we got that isn't global community-like.
1. You dive in with a discussion of consciousness to underscore that we are significant. This is an attention grabber. Too many paragraphs then seem to go by before you contend that we are at "the moment when the consciousness that has slowly emerged on this planet could blossom or wither or even die."
2. "For now I would just ask you to grant that, if what I just said is true, then the following follows:" need for "true international governance" etc. That is a lot to ask. A bit of a defense of international governance for solving the cataclysmic problems you mention would go a long way here.
I believe it was Aristotle’s view that moral virtues are both the means and the end. They help us achieve the good (happiness) and by having them we are good. Your position sounds similar. I like that.
Dear Mr. Wright, If you haven't read "Critical Path" by R. Buckminster Fuller by all means have a look, it embodies so many of your ideas (at least read the introduction, it's on Apple Books). What he wrote about decades ago has finally reached into today's world, why it didn't years ago I wonder. Must have to do with hanging on to obsolete concepts of scarcity and ideology -- sort of spiritual blindness. The urgency of your project's aims are so clear. Thanks for your efforts! Bert
As in your other books Bob, you begin with a Big Picture view of humanity within the cosmos. I think that this will be an incentive to read the whole book for many readers. I do think that you should mention the other 'reasons' for moving towards global cooperation and international governance aside from nuclear proliferation, climate change, and arms races with just a little more detail to get the reader interested in the whole book. My 2 cents. Ray Scupin
I think this gives a good overall view, skipping and hopping along, of your perspective of the situation that advocates a fundamental restructuring of how humans need to view themselves and avoid wiping the “You are here” from the Universe’s t-shirt. It’s a purposely fuzzy beginning, but it’s a fuzzy topic, and that fuzziness should entice readers to hopefully read further—which is a good reason for doing it that way.
Of course, the rest of the book is to then take each of those perspective ideas and develop them in chapters/units. Following the sequence of ideas you’ve presented would be a good structure for what would be the next chapter, and so on. Of course, new ideas and directions will pop up and need to be discussed, but your introductory ideas form the basis of what comes next.
If the goal is to reach readers of a broad spectrum of capacity for concept comprehension, shall we say, then the organization of the specifics of your ideas is crucial. Units and chapters would be a good way to do this, as you’ve done in previous books. It’s tough to make them understandable for everyone, to say the least, but maybe the units and chapters could be structured so there are pithy, summarizing sentences and paragraphs that are strategically situated and easily located by a keyed or linked symbol. Readers could then investigate further if they are so moved.
This gets into the organizational structure of the book, but my point is that to be effective at getting most of humanity involved, the book and its ideas have to be extremely accessible to others besides the “leaders,” though that’s a needed place to start. As others have abundantly brought up, the matter of getting people involved is a massive task; but the presentation of ideas through a book can be an important aspect of that task, and these are some thoughts about doing that.
When you talk "Global Governance" I hear United Nations and I think bureaucracy, hypocrisy, waste and anti America. For me this is a huge turn off to even consider the rest of your arguments.
Do you plan on explaining the "epic threats" that we are facing? Frankly I don't really know what you are referring to or why.
The one threat you mention specifically is climate change by which I think you mean planetary environmental disaster. I believe that the existential threat posed by climate change is the characterization of it as an existential threat. This framing is paralyzing our youth and diverting money and energy away from addressing more pressing and tractable issues. On this subject I can't recommend strongly enough that you read "Apocalypse Never" by Michael Shellenberger. You should also invite him to discuss it on your podcast.
I like it a lot. I’d expect the next chapter to expand on the threats, before moving into what we do about them. Unless there’s a first chapter explaining why consciousness matters in the first place.
Also wonder if the final para should tie it back to apocalypse aversion – so this harmony isn’t just possible, but essential and urgent.
PS: As a writer used to receiving feedback, I should tell fellow commenters that ’Good start’ is an extremely triggering phrase.
Interesting stuff! I have one issue with the first part of your discussion, and that is the apparent equating of consciousness with moral significance. The former doesn’t entail the latter, does it? I could imagine a world of sentient beings, viz. most of the animal world, without moral significance, because they don’t have the capacity for freely chosen action. Presumably most animals act on instinct, and whether they act violently or “helpfully,” their actions can’t be called morally good or morally bad. So humans, I think, have an even higher level of achievement than consciousness, which is the ability to perform freely chosen action, which allows for acts of moral goodness and, of course, moral evil. I think this point just strengthens your case for the “specialness” of stuff on planet Earth; consciousness (already better than the biggest star, but something even Nagel’s bat has) and moral significance! These things are definitely worth preserving, IMHO.
I’m also a bit unclear on the outline of your argument. I think it’s the following: (1) Averting various technological disasters will require international cooperation. (2) Achieving international cooperation will require achieving intranational harmony. (3) Achieving intranational harmony will require widespread spiritual readjustment (which will also facilitate the achievement of international harmony). (4) One consequence of these statements: Averting various technological disasters will require widespread spiritual readjustment. Is this right? If so, you might be more explicit about it. If not, then I think you need to be more explicit about what it is.
I’m going to hit this systematically...
Is this a good way to start an AAP book?
Yes as a kid that remembers the end tail-end of the sixties and beyond the “You are here” iconic poster resonates. Elaborating from there are on a cost/benefit analysis approach is a very good start. We all have skin in the game of existence don’t we?
On a further note I think the sensing of red and green analogy would be better if you harkened back to the red/blue colors from the Matrix pill analogy (at least the colors not the meaning). The reason the Mandalorian did so well (I heard Star Wars isn’t your thing) was all the throwbacks that go back to the earliest films greatest hits. All your books are relevant collectively to summarizing your personal dharma. We are not getting younger everyday but don’t look at this as a complete bookend but more a spiritual-based movement.
Does it get and hold your attention?
Absolutely. I think you are pointing out the milestones in evolution. Whether early man using a club as a tool for dominance in 2001: A Space Oddessy or the stages of human development like the futurist Toffler stated that the agricultural age, Industrial Age and information/technology age are highly relevant. Listing a 1-2-3 approach is pretty effective.
If not, what might be a better way to start the book?
I don’t question my ability to get through a book especially when written by you. I do question the ability of a younger audience unless spiritually seeking to have the attention span. I’m not exactly sure how to be hip in the third quarter of life. But throwbacks of the era of the sixties and seventies which you were about 13 years old seems to resound to the younger crowd. Perhaps frame things from the wisdom of cultural change in the sixties because it is relevant to changes in today’s world. I’m guessing that living in that era can make you a wise sage.
What parts of this didn’t you like/understand?
I didn’t think it was an awful first attempt. I’d resist the urge to assume that any first attempt should go into the dustbin.
What parts do you think were missing?
For an opening chapter I think it covered the bases on how you see the world. Your job is to go deeper into the concepts and as I said be a futurist. This one of the reasons I have a deep passion for Blade Runner with its dystopian vision of the world. It has elements of an exhausted eco-system and healthy people leaving in mass exodus.
And (especially if you basically like it as a way to start a book) what would you want the next chapter to be about?
I think you might consider the next chapter to be about the current state of affairs. Where we have arrived to a decision fork in the crossroads. There is a point perhaps later but not in the next chapter but midway where you may have to put on a futurist perspective to relay both an envisioned good or bad scenario moving forward. How will the future world look? Will it be utopian or an Idiocracy? How does industry look to resolve a greedy capitalist society versus sharing in success?
The first pages of a book need to grab me to shake me out of my inertia. This created enough interest that I would buy your book. But then again, I probably would have anyway ... I definitely like the potential promise of a less un-enlightened life!
Good start. I like the direction. You lost me halfway through, because we were talking about size and measurement, and then we weren't and then we were talking about creating a global community (hooray! I agree). I'm not sure I felt shock nor inclined to disagree, which was my first flag for something to notice. When I don't feel skepticism, I turn skeptical.
Because I've been thinking about just this trajectory yesterday (good cross-influence, if you ask me), I'll share some of my thoughts, as well as a handful of the resources I've been running across.
My concern this weekend was about the "deal" we've made as humans to say that human progress equals technological progress. At university, I studied a good deal of art, a good deal of technology and a smattering about our social context and how to write. Somehow I managed to get a true liberal arts education while focusing on some depth of art and technology. Throughout that time, I've been troubled by the idea that technology roughly means "the study of how to do things" and yet we use it as a stand-in to mean anything from "my smartphone" to "that computer" to "the traffic lights at Van Ness and Broadway" to "paper" and "books." The word and what it infers is so broad as to be meaningless and yet it clutters our days and discussions.
After hearing a friend talk a little bit about work she's doing in regenerative agriculture (helping farmers in Latin America move from a slash-and-burn approach to creating more coffee farms to growing and distributing spices that are more-native to the land), I started to get the inkling that perhaps agriculture (the part you left out after "hunter-gatherer") was really the peak of human existence. Or, in milder terms, we've been raising crops for a good several thousands of years, but we only have several hundreds of years using and understanding the new tools we've created. Let's start with Eyptian pyramids and Roman concrete as a starting point – there's a ton of other neat inventions earlier than that, but those are the more popular ones I can think of now. Most of this stuff required or assumed slavery in some way. I'm not sure (but I could be wrong), that we have a long history of slavery when humans are able and encouraged to grow their own food. Or, as a different friend reminds, government violence operates best once you "lock the food up."
Those are my thoughts at the moment. Your introduction reminded me of these resources:
- Featured the Matt Taibbi's substack today: https://press.stripe.com/#the-revolt-of-the-public
- A short read (speculative science history [!]) that I'm almost done with: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-collapse-of-western-civilization/9780231169547
- 1977, Powers of Ten by Ray and Charles Eames: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0
- Isle of Woman / Geodyssey series * from Piers Anthony: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/piers-anthony/isle-of-woman/
* The internet informs me that my taste is terrible and that I ought to feel ashamed for reading a book that describes not only human evolution, but also historical fiction on the evolution of sex and sexuality. Personally, I find that there are interesting questions posed and a decent recalling of the evolution of humans as a species. Everything is contested ground these days. See "The Revolt of the Public" for a decent framing of that.
Not in any particular order:
Your use of the words "moral" and "morality" is inaccurate. What constitutes morality is not carved in stone but varies according to one's cultural context. Mores are commonly-agreed-on standards; for instance, some cultures frown on polygamy and others accept it. The terms you're looking for are "ethical" and "ethics." Standards of ethical conduct are not limited to a specific time and/or place.
As an invitation to participate in mutual apocalypse avoidance, the idea that we are "special" seems to me to be part of the problem. The fact that we don't know--and may never know--whether there is sentient life elsewhere (and chances are good that there is) does not permit us to assume uniqueness. This notion of the uniqueness of humankind, with respect not just to life elsewhere in the universe but also to all the rest of earth's myriad species, is fundamental to the "religions of the book" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and has for millennia given us carte blanche to wreak havoc on anything or anyone that isn't human. "Special" reeks of arrogance and entitlement, precisely what we as a species must move away from--or go extinct. The image of the individual human as a mere speck amid the countless stars should evoke profound humility, not its opposite. Personally, I have long felt that the human mind is an aberration, an evolutionary misstep or, at best, an experiment gone awry.
Finally, as a writer, it helps to give the reader something specific, concrete, and compelling, to engage him or her at the outset. A story, if you will, that illustrates the point you wish to make. If your book were a video production, "you are here" could provide that hook, but in this case I think you need to consider a less abstract opening.
You had to ask ;)
great stuff Bob. I think the key to hooking an enthusiastic readership is the pointer towards happiness. We would all be happier if the apocalypse could be averted; happier if more people could be persuaded to live virtuously, especially our political leaders; happier if we were not so obviously destroying the planet and with it a viable future for humanity. The problem is that happiness is perceived by the cynical as some soft amorphous concept far removed from harsh present reality, remote and unachievable instead of immediate and definitely obtainable. If you can trace a 'realistic' path from present dysfunction to future non-zero sum global happiness, then it's job done, apocalypse averted. I think you've made a great start by placing us in context in time and space. Providing context gives perspective, which helps make positive choices. Just carry on. A slim volume for teenagers, a more substantial one for grown-ups and an unexpurgated tome for the oldies - why not all three ?
Nice go at it. I think you commit an error that bothers me about our society generally right now, including what is being called “the woke.” You jumped so quickly to the moral and spiritual issues. I think that’s a problem of our time. It seems like to me the starting point to the solution is to find a way to agree on the facts first, then it’s easier to even define the moral issues. To start , it would be helpful to agree with the fact that we did evolve here in the way science tells us, and that evolution gave us some harmful/dangerous tendencies (including short sightedness, tribalism ...) and agree with the fact that we are heating up the planet in an unsustainable way ... If everyone thought as rationally as you do, Bob, then the problem would be much easier to solve. Instead we have masses believing the end of times is shaping up. We have masses who believe Allah has his own designs on our future. Not to pin all the irrationality on religion but it’s the easiest way to make the point.
Isn’t the start of the solution to change the way people THINK not to change their morals when they don’t even agree with your premise?
Sorry, this is obviously a pet issue of mine.
OK. Since contributors to the discussion seem to be having so much concern about Bob being able to just get people started reading the book because in its suggested form (remember, it's just a draft idea!) it would turn off many because it’s too… pedantic, obscure, academic, or whatever, I’ll join the “fun” and throw out a suggestion—a little out of the box, maybe—that might get around some of these concerns and snag a broader audience.
Start with a story. Bob sort of did that in Why Buddhism Is True, with a reference to The Matrix, but this would be more extensive and structurally part of the book. Stories are a great hook for any interest level of a reader: be it factual, fiction, or mixture. And it’s been the basis of entertainment and learning for humankind ever since the beginning of language—and still is. So why not purposely use it here?
For example, the first thing a reader would see is a story (no distracting Introduction—leave that to the cover and sales page blurbs) that starts with a focal character personally involved with some activity that is an element(s) covered in the book, such as her house being washed away by more frequent floods, losing a job due to vulnerabilities of the global economy, facing a new pandemic, cyberwarfare shutting off the electricity—the usual stuff. The more real the character and situation is, the more chance the reader will get hooked and want to read more, including the ensuing discussion about how it is part of the whole intent of the book. Entertainment is the hook, which slides into education—the essence of all good storytelling around the tribal campfire.
Now, this could be a long story at the beginning with lots of elements in it, but I would suggest that it might be a better tactic to keep a reader’s interest in the whole book if a new story (or it could be a continuation of the beginning story, with a new focus) started each new unit. It would be a story that introduced the unit’s focus by having the focal character struggling in a situation that exemplified that focus. Then, the shift would be on to the significance of what was happening to the character and his family as it relates to the book’s message, and what needs to be done personally and institutionally.
The same process of storytelling and explanation would repeat throughout the book. The function of the story would be to make it something realistic with which the reader could identify and Bob could refer back to as an example in his explanation sections, reinforcing the points he wanted to make. The stories for each unit don’t have to be just fiction or just factual but could be factual in one, fiction in another, mixed in another, etc. Whatever works to get the point across. In fact, new mini-stories could be brought up as examples in the explanations to add realism and facts. Bob is used to doing that in his writing anyway, so no sweat. Right?
There are lots of opportunities for creativity here, and it may be a great way to reach the broad audience that all of us are concerned about. Now, going beyond the book format, this storytelling element easily lends itself to doing the same messaging in video format—fiction and documentary stories. Director Bob, anyone?
Normally, I'd go to the library to the New Non-Fiction and pick out a book if the title intrigued me.
Apocalypse Aversion Project, definitely, would do this. I'd read the jacket, then the introduction, your intro such as it is, also would be intriguing. Can't wait for the finished product.
The idea that by doing what feels good to me might actually save the planet? We create our world every day by our actions. We are evolving, be part of the evolution. I'm with that.
You seem optimistic and boy, can I use some optimism now, so that's a plus.
Do you have a particular audience in mind? Everyone needs to be in on this and I don't think now is the time to be particular.
A next chapter detailing what a global community would look like makes sense and ought to include what it is that we got that isn't global community-like.
Thank you for letting me feel a part of this.
1. You dive in with a discussion of consciousness to underscore that we are significant. This is an attention grabber. Too many paragraphs then seem to go by before you contend that we are at "the moment when the consciousness that has slowly emerged on this planet could blossom or wither or even die."
2. "For now I would just ask you to grant that, if what I just said is true, then the following follows:" need for "true international governance" etc. That is a lot to ask. A bit of a defense of international governance for solving the cataclysmic problems you mention would go a long way here.
I believe it was Aristotle’s view that moral virtues are both the means and the end. They help us achieve the good (happiness) and by having them we are good. Your position sounds similar. I like that.
Dear Mr. Wright, If you haven't read "Critical Path" by R. Buckminster Fuller by all means have a look, it embodies so many of your ideas (at least read the introduction, it's on Apple Books). What he wrote about decades ago has finally reached into today's world, why it didn't years ago I wonder. Must have to do with hanging on to obsolete concepts of scarcity and ideology -- sort of spiritual blindness. The urgency of your project's aims are so clear. Thanks for your efforts! Bert
As in your other books Bob, you begin with a Big Picture view of humanity within the cosmos. I think that this will be an incentive to read the whole book for many readers. I do think that you should mention the other 'reasons' for moving towards global cooperation and international governance aside from nuclear proliferation, climate change, and arms races with just a little more detail to get the reader interested in the whole book. My 2 cents. Ray Scupin
I think this gives a good overall view, skipping and hopping along, of your perspective of the situation that advocates a fundamental restructuring of how humans need to view themselves and avoid wiping the “You are here” from the Universe’s t-shirt. It’s a purposely fuzzy beginning, but it’s a fuzzy topic, and that fuzziness should entice readers to hopefully read further—which is a good reason for doing it that way.
Of course, the rest of the book is to then take each of those perspective ideas and develop them in chapters/units. Following the sequence of ideas you’ve presented would be a good structure for what would be the next chapter, and so on. Of course, new ideas and directions will pop up and need to be discussed, but your introductory ideas form the basis of what comes next.
If the goal is to reach readers of a broad spectrum of capacity for concept comprehension, shall we say, then the organization of the specifics of your ideas is crucial. Units and chapters would be a good way to do this, as you’ve done in previous books. It’s tough to make them understandable for everyone, to say the least, but maybe the units and chapters could be structured so there are pithy, summarizing sentences and paragraphs that are strategically situated and easily located by a keyed or linked symbol. Readers could then investigate further if they are so moved.
This gets into the organizational structure of the book, but my point is that to be effective at getting most of humanity involved, the book and its ideas have to be extremely accessible to others besides the “leaders,” though that’s a needed place to start. As others have abundantly brought up, the matter of getting people involved is a massive task; but the presentation of ideas through a book can be an important aspect of that task, and these are some thoughts about doing that.
When you talk "Global Governance" I hear United Nations and I think bureaucracy, hypocrisy, waste and anti America. For me this is a huge turn off to even consider the rest of your arguments.
Do you plan on explaining the "epic threats" that we are facing? Frankly I don't really know what you are referring to or why.
The one threat you mention specifically is climate change by which I think you mean planetary environmental disaster. I believe that the existential threat posed by climate change is the characterization of it as an existential threat. This framing is paralyzing our youth and diverting money and energy away from addressing more pressing and tractable issues. On this subject I can't recommend strongly enough that you read "Apocalypse Never" by Michael Shellenberger. You should also invite him to discuss it on your podcast.
I like it a lot. I’d expect the next chapter to expand on the threats, before moving into what we do about them. Unless there’s a first chapter explaining why consciousness matters in the first place.
Also wonder if the final para should tie it back to apocalypse aversion – so this harmony isn’t just possible, but essential and urgent.
PS: As a writer used to receiving feedback, I should tell fellow commenters that ’Good start’ is an extremely triggering phrase.
Interesting stuff! I have one issue with the first part of your discussion, and that is the apparent equating of consciousness with moral significance. The former doesn’t entail the latter, does it? I could imagine a world of sentient beings, viz. most of the animal world, without moral significance, because they don’t have the capacity for freely chosen action. Presumably most animals act on instinct, and whether they act violently or “helpfully,” their actions can’t be called morally good or morally bad. So humans, I think, have an even higher level of achievement than consciousness, which is the ability to perform freely chosen action, which allows for acts of moral goodness and, of course, moral evil. I think this point just strengthens your case for the “specialness” of stuff on planet Earth; consciousness (already better than the biggest star, but something even Nagel’s bat has) and moral significance! These things are definitely worth preserving, IMHO.
I’m also a bit unclear on the outline of your argument. I think it’s the following: (1) Averting various technological disasters will require international cooperation. (2) Achieving international cooperation will require achieving intranational harmony. (3) Achieving intranational harmony will require widespread spiritual readjustment (which will also facilitate the achievement of international harmony). (4) One consequence of these statements: Averting various technological disasters will require widespread spiritual readjustment. Is this right? If so, you might be more explicit about it. If not, then I think you need to be more explicit about what it is.