Climate Change | Energy | Sustainability | Environment | Transportation | Policy | Buildings

Sander van der Leeuw: The Archaeology of Innovation

More from this series:

The Long Now Foundation

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 12 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Cariboo Avatar
Posted: 01.24.10, 06:53 PM
@dennisoneill4 Dennis, I don't mean to alarm you, but as an architect, I use Newton's laws all the time. So does every civil, structural and mechanical engineer alive. Newton's laws of motion are integral to our current understanding of mechanics, and have been for at least 200 years. We even measure Force in Newtons! Every large building, every bridge...any engineering project at all...gets designed using Newtonian physics. Same with your car, and even the moving parts of the computer you used to watch this video. That's some dogma! Now it's true that Einstein revealed that Newton's laws aren't quite as universal as once thought. But then it's not like all those buildings came crashing down the minute Einstein published his theory of special relativity. Newton's laws are still very, very, very useful, and evidence of their usefulness is literally all around you. With Einstein, science did what science does: it evolves, it expands it improves with time. There's absolutely no doubt that there's a lot more to learn about the earth's climate. But that doesn't automatically invalidate what we already know, nor is it an argument for inaction. Imagine if we'd stopped building anything--structural or mechanical--in 1905, because Einstein proved there was still "uncertainty" in physics. But anyway, Dennis: on behalf of all us "scientifically illiterate" people, thanks for the lecture!
nitka Avatar
Posted: 01.17.10, 01:25 AM
Very interesting presentation. I have enjoyed it heaps. So glad we have sites like Fora to listen to and watch. Very educational.
Am-Expat Avatar
Posted: 01.06.10, 12:39 AM
Additionally, the current skeptism relates in proption to the funding of denier PR organizations by commercial interests that wish to counter the evidence with a negative public opinion. Almost unique in the world is a general population that values opinion more than evidence. The denier movement in the US is a political movement, not a disagreement between researchers. It is not by coincidence that the opinions of laymen who do not "believe" in global warming is running about the same percent of the population as those who deny evolution, believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, believe in ghosts and that man did not go to the moon, now over 50% of the population, or about the same percentage who can't find England on a map. That there is negative opinion or non-belief in climate change says nothing about the evidence or the science, it only gives indication of state of ignorance in the US of any evidence based fields of study. This is why the US can't be expected to lead in finding solutions in this question, if corporate interests are not in favor of participating, the US can't.
SwampFoxAnalyst Avatar
Posted: 01.04.10, 08:04 PM
@dennisoneill4 You claim, "To say the the science of human-caused global warming is settled science would only make sense to people who are scientifically illiterate, which is most of the U.S. population, which is why the religion has taken off." This claim is counterfactual. Acceptance of human-caused global warming is lower in the US than in many other countries, see . There is also a correlation between education level and acceptance of human-caused global warming.
SwampFoxAnalyst Avatar
Posted: 01.04.10, 07:42 PM
@dennisoneill4 To claim that Einstein overturned Newton is simply incorrect. Einstein, like Lorentz, build upon Newton's work by subtly redefining time and distance in a way that was consistent with a fixed speed of light. The basic equations of Newtonian mechanics are intact, once you apply the Lorentz transformations. Energy, mass and momentum are still conserved - in fact, they are related by m2 = E2 - p2, assuming natural units where c=1. Einstein gave us a refinement of Newton, a beautiful refinement that illuminates a wider range of conditions. But not a 'overturning' of Newton. One of the earliest to recognize that burning fossil fuels will increase C02 and that that would lead to a greenhouse effect was Svante August Arrhenius. When your name is inscribed in stone beside his on science buildings, I will accept that you understand science well enough to make such arrogant claims about who is scientifically illiterate. I'm quite confident that day will never come.
ascilto Avatar
Posted: 01.04.10, 01:01 PM
Assuming of course wrongly that technology does not present inherent risks.
mszlazak Avatar
Posted: 12.28.09, 09:05 PM
Nuclear power will keep the "ponzi scheme" going for so long that archeologist of the future will be still heavily using it in their lives as they analyze the fossilized remnants of this talk. In other words, energy innovation is all that's needed.
Pess Avatar
Posted: 12.24.09, 04:32 PM
here here
dennisoneill4 Avatar
Posted: 12.24.09, 08:06 AM
Global warming, if it is even happening, and a human cause attributable to it, are at best more akin to religion than science. Dogma, far more than evidence, reigns in the church of earth worship. Newton's laws of motion were scientific dogma for centuries until Einstein's work overturned the Newtonian world. To say the the science of human-caused global warming is settled science would only make sense to people who are scientifically illiterate, which is most of the U.S. population, which is why the religion has taken off. Unfortunately, the cult takes away resources that could be applied to very real, well-established environmental threats.
Watch The Long Now Foundation
Unlimited access to all programs
Watch Sander van der Leeuw: The Archaeology of Innovation
30 Days Unlimited Viewing

Advertisement ticker