My God. Is this what philosophy has come to? The author is a credentialed philosopher (or rather, professor of philosophy) at a prestigious university, but he can't write and doesn't make sense, at least when writing for a popular audience. The op-ed column reads like a first draft of a thesis-defense paper written by a college sophomore. It's repetitive, rambling, tendentious, and pretentious. Some of it is just plain gibberish (by any standard of effective prose-writing):
Mainly, humanity learns as identities alter to become less aggressive and more open, so that networks can connect individual capacities more effectively and join our resources together.
The author cherry-picks facts that support his thesis (to the extent that there is a thesis) and ignores those that undermine it. He begs all the important questions, such as whether the globe is, in fact, warming, and, if it is, whether human beings are causing all or some of it. He confuses science with technology. He never explains that he means by "good" and "evil." It's not even clear what the point of the column is. Am I missing something?
