Christopher Hitchens has died. I know this readership is probably of mixed opinion on the man. I for one could never quite connect with his evangelical atheism. And yet I admired him deeply. He's a writer's writer. He had the power to make you reflect even when you know in your heart you don't agree with him. And if you like to read because you write, he makes you a better writer -- even though you know you'll never be as good.
Sam Harris has upset a lot of classical liberals with this post on wealth redistribution. I won't critique it here, because other people have done such a good job. Why would Harris wade into this debate? Perhaps fame has helped Harris feel qualified to talk about everything under the sun. He's become one of the big evangelists for atheism, you know. And while I'm not particularly religious myself, I generally find his critiques of religion to be a couple of centuries behind the times.
Contrast MIchio Kaku's remarks with Peter Diamandis's. Both are right to a degree. The question is: to what extent can time and innovation change the equation?
On the one hand computers and brains are very different. As Kaku says: one has a CPU, the other has a cerebral cortex, for example. But the differences between computers and brains aren't so vast. So when Diamandis says we're eventually going to become more "godlike," by virtue of networking computers and brains, I think he's right. Let me depart a little from my usual fare and get a bit philosophical.
Like she did for many people, Ayn Rand changed my life. I was in high school. While I don't agree with all her views today, I have a grudging respect for the woman who continues to change peoples thinking like few people have been able. If Mr. Buchanan, my high school creative writing teacher, had not foisted The Fountainhead on me, I would not be writing this. No other person has had so profound an influence on my career -- even though there are thinkers whose work I now admire more. A paradox?
