[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: the future is wild, review
At 5:06 PM -0500 1/2/03, Robert G. Tuck Jr. wrote:
My major problem with the program was its pretense of being based on
"scientific" extrapolations of the "laws of evolution." The honest approach
would have been to bill it plainly as "fantasy," meant for entertainment
I didn't see the program, but I read Dougal Dixon's original "After
Man" long ago. That was presented as honest speculation of what might
evolve from the plants and animals most successful in human-dominated
world after the people went away. I find that sort of "what if"
extrapolation fun because it _is_ based on our knowledge of how
evolution works. For example, the discovery of flightless extinct
geese in Hawaii that evolved from Canada geese led me to imagine a
flightless ostrich-sized Canada goose, evolved from the denizens of
northern golf courses.
There's nothing wrong with speculation that's identified as such.
From the recent round of complaints, it sounds like the latest
documentaries (which I haven't seen) don't do a good job of
identifying what's speculative. -- Jeff Hecht