>Some of this talk reminds me of Stanley Aronowitz on the end of work
>- he wanted to see as inevitable what was really his own preference.
>It's going to take political work to change our oil-based energy
>system; I doubt Hubbert's peak will be up to the task alone.
I won't speak for Aronowitz or for Rifkin because, frankly, I found both of their contributions to the "end of work" issue rather superficial, one-dimensional and derivative. But I suspect that is a feature of the popularization of ideas rather than of the ideas themselves. Rifkin and Aronowitz reached wider audiences by taking the inevitabilist tack. Who's ever heard about, say, Lonnie Golden or Ben Hunnicutt. And who could be bothered with furiners like Ulrich Beck or Paolo Virno. It's not just a matter of "preferences", though. There are real sociological, political, psychological and physical reasons for opposing one course of development and supporting another. I guess you could say that's just my preference for freedom, social inclusion, purpose and survival rather than fascism, isolation, automatonism and annihilation. Hey, whatever turns you on, man.
But let's get back to the "some of this talk reminds me of" business. How do you do the lumping and splitting on that one? Is it that some of the talk on each "side" is fatuous? Or is it that for you, the fatuous talk on the other side characterizes that side, whereas your side is characterized by its best talk. Anybody can beat up a straw man. Anybody.
The Sandwichman