How Much Information Is Too Much?
Published September 20, 2002
Steven Zeitchik writes in Publishers Weekly:
- An op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times earlier this week that suggested restricting publishers who distribute information on chemical weapons provoked an angry response from the AAP and the presses.
The column, Recipes for Death, argued that because these books are getting more sophisticated, the legal test established by the Hit Man case several years ago requiring publisher intent is too weak. "Our small presses could end up helping terrorists much more than Saddam ever has" Kristof wrote. In addition to war, he said, we should "consider other distasteful steps that could also make us safer."
Despite recommendations that were more than a little vague, the column prompted an extended and pointed response from Pat Schroeder, who wrote, in part, "If we agreed to suspend the First Amendment and broadly criminalize the dissemination of 'dangerous information' in books, where would we begin? With information about chemical and biological agents? Where would we end? With schedules of commercial airline flights?
"Who would determine what constitutes 'dangerous information?' The Justice Department? The Defense Department? The Director of Homeland Security? What criteria would be used for making such determinations?"
She ended her statement, "Even if Mr. Kristof's premise seems valid, there is still only one answer to his question. The unsettling realization that our own freedoms of expression and information can be sometimes turned against us should not persuade us to turn away from them."
Underground publishers and retailers had an equally strong, though less philosophical, critique. Frank Salerno, who runs the retailer FS Book Company, said Kristof is working with a number of false assumptions. "The books aren't really getting better; in fact, most of them haven't been rewritten in a long time. Besides, all of this information is available on the Internet anyway."
Billy Blann, who publishes Delta Press and its popular Poor Man's James Bond - a book that, as "a kind of Reader's Digest of do-it-yourself mayhem," would certainly catch Kristof's eye - said that arguments like Kristof's don't take into account that "you can ban every book in this country and you'll still have terrorism." Blann then added that his company "was in the dumps with the rest of the economy."
- This book was the BIBLE for street survival. The cons, tips, etc. are SEVERELY DATED by todays standards. But as a runaway, living on the streets of N.Y.C. in the early 70's, ALL THE SCAMS WORKED. I probably would have ended up having to GO HOME, were it not for the information in this book. Todays readers may find it a comical view of the "Revolution", but the people in the know, will tell you it was the greatest thing since the "Welfare Check". I STILL have my original copy (stolen from a bookstore, of course). REQUIRED READING for anyone studying the hippie revolution of the 60's.
- How Much Information Is Too Much?
- Published: September 20, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Books: News
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/717)
Evolution, Entropy, and Open Systems:
The law of entropy in science teaches that the natural (or spontaneous) tendency of all matter is towards greater disorder and randomness - not greater order and complexity, as evolution would teach. Contrary to what evolutionists claim, entropy does occur in open systems as well as in closed systems. After all, we discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun.
The difference between an open system and a closed system is not entropy but the availability of useful energy. Evolutionists believe that in an open system, such as the Earth, the unlimited energy available from the Sun will provide matter with the ability to overcome entropy so that matter can evolve towards ever greater levels of complexity, order, and organization.
However, it is not sufficient to have just enough energy to produce substantial levels of order. There also has to exist an energy converting and directing mechanism. Living things possess complex energy converting and directing mechanisms to temporarily overcome entropy so that a seed, for example, can develop into a tree. The question is how did biological order and such mechanisms come into being in the first place at a time when there was no energy converting and directing mechanism in Nature to overcome entropy.
Only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of chance or spontaneous processes. Amino acids, for example, have been shown to come into existence by chance (spontaneously) but not proteins. Functioning protein molecules require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. There is no evidence that chance processes can accomplish this - especially the many millions of protein molecules found in even the simplest cell.
There is no innate chemical tendency for amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by the sequence of molecules found in the genetic code. If they're not in the proper sequence protein molecules will not function.
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!
We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, planes, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that Nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, doesn't work the same way!
Entropy is still the biggest scientific obstacle to evolution. Entropy is the opposite direction of evolution. The natural and spontaneous tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder and randomness - not greater order and complexity.
Science cannot prove we are here by either design (creation) or by chance (evolution), but people should be free to study the evidence from both sides and decide for themselves which has better scientific support.
Researchers and highly qualified scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) of San Diego, California can provide much helpful material to the interested public on this and other issues concerning creation and evolution.
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Theology/Biology)
www.religionscience.com
Also by the author: The Natural Limits of Evolution is available for reading at www.religionscience.com