I think this is a good place to discuss the thoughtful article at CJR. Thing is, I've read it twice now, once yesterday and once today, and I'm not sure I get it as a coherent whole. It is sort of two parts introduction to the world, one part looking into the near future that looks like a pretty linear extension of the present, and one part looking a bit further into the future that represents a serious break from the present.
This isn't criticism, but if I had my druthers, though, I would have liked the piece to focus on its final part, which is really only discussed in the antepenultimate and penultimate grafs. They're the inspiration for the title of the thing, and they're the vaguest part of the article. While that vagueness is certainly understandable, I'm not sure it's necessary. It would have been awesome to see that vision more fully fleshed out and undergirded by some economic, political, or cultural logic.
I think this is a good place to discuss the thoughtful article at CJR. Thing is, I've read it twice now, once yesterday and once today, and I'm not sure I get it as a coherent whole. It is sort of two parts introduction to the world, one part looking into the near future that looks like a pretty linear extension of the present, and one part looking a bit further into the future that represents a serious break from the present.
This isn't criticism, but if I had my druthers, though, I would have liked the piece to focus on its final part, which is really only discussed in the antepenultimate and penultimate grafs. They're the inspiration for the title of the thing, and they're the vaguest part of the article. While that vagueness is certainly understandable, I'm not sure it's necessary. It would have been awesome to see that vision more fully fleshed out and undergirded by some economic, political, or cultural logic.