Winsor, P. "Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Remained Constant During the 1990s."Geophysical Research Letters 28, no. 6 (March 2001): 1039-41.
E-Book Extras Years before starting a novel, Michael Crichton often explores his views on a particular subject by giving speeches before an audience. Writing a speech forces him to sharpen his ideas, and the audience reaction gives him a gauge about whether he has been clear or not in expressing his thoughts.
Starting in 1992, Crichton began to consider issues of media speculation and the environment in a series of speeches that eventually led to the novelState of Fear . Three of those speeches are included here.
1. Why Speculate?: A speech to the International Leadership Forum 2. The Greatest Challenge Facing Mankind: Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco 3. Aliens Cause Global Warming: The 2003 Michelin Lecture at the California Institute of Technology E-Book Extra Why Speculate?
A Speech to the International Leadership Forum La Jolla, California April 26, 2002
My topic for today is the prevalence of speculation in media. What does it mean? Why has it become so ubiquitous? Should we do something about it? If so, what should we do? And why? Should we care at all? Isn't speculation valuable? Isn't it natural?
I will join this speculative bandwagon and speculate about why there is so much speculation. In keeping with the trend, I will try to express my views without any factual support, simply providing you with a series of bald assertions.
This is not my natural style, and it's going to be a challenge for me, but I will do my best. I have written out my talk which is already a contradiction of principle. To keep within the spirit of our time, it should really be off the top of my head.
Before we begin, I'd like to clarify a definition. By media I mean movies, television, internet, books, newspapers and magazines. That's a broad definition but in keeping with the general trend of speculation, let's not make too many fine distinctions.
First we might begin by asking, to what degree has the media turned to pure speculation? Someone could do a study of this and present facts, but nobody has. I certainly won't. There's no reason to bother.
Today, everybody knows that "Hardball," "The O'Relly Factor," and similar shows are nothing but a steady stream of guesses about the future. The Sunday morning talk shows are pure speculation. They have to be. Everybody knows there's no news on Sunday.
But speculation is every bit as rampant in the so-called serious media, such as newspapers. For example, consider theNew York Times for March 6, 2002, the day I was asked to give this talk. The column-one story that day concerns George Bush's tariffs on imported steel. We read: Mr. Bush's action "is likelyto send the price of steel up sharply,perhaps as much as ten percent." American consumers "will ultimatelybear" higher prices. America's allies "would almost certainlychallenge" the decision. Their legal case "couldtake years to litigate in Geneva,is likely to hinge" on thus and such.
In addition, there is a further vague and overarching speculation. The Allies' challenge would be "setting the stage for a major trade fight with many of the same countries Mr. Bush is trying to hold together in the fractious coalition against terrorism." In other words, the story speculates that tariffsmay rebound against the fight against terrorism.
You may read this story and think, what's the big deal? Isn't it reasonable to talk about effects of current events in this way? I answer, absolutely not. Such speculation is a complete waste of time. It's useless. It's bullshit on the front page of theTimes .
The reason why it is useless, of course, is that nobody knows what the future holds.