Taryn Mulvihill

Paper 13
Stewart Brands The Clock of the Long Now centers literally around the construction
of a massive clock that counts time in a much slower fashion than the timing that we follow in
daily life. This clock represents, however, a more effective way in which we could perceive the
world; one in which we are willing to view the effects of our actions in long term and change our
ways accordingly. It is important to recognize the different paces at which change takes place in
a civilization, and allow each aspect of society to work within its own timeframe, otherwise
risking the balance needed to maintain a functioning society. Brand lists the six levels of this, in
descending order of speed, as fashion/art, commerce, infrastructure, governance, culture, and
nature; each ideally maintains its pace by drawing vigor from the shorter-term aspects, while
staying grounded by the long-haul aspects. He also brings up the point that civilization as we
know it rests solely on the skeleton of societies past, and that we must maintain a careful balance
in this precarious situation, without allowing the influence of the past to become fully comforting
nor entirely a warning.
When prompted to tackle long-term environmental issues, Brand proposes not only
action, but a shift in the publics frame of thought to a lengthier conception of the now, as our
attention span has progressively become too short to appreciate the full effects of environmental
degradation. He provides that any successful systems salvation lies in its ability to translate the
lessons learned from its past failures into improvements over time, which constitutes a long-term
foresight and willingness for immediate sacrifice. Brand cites many ancient scientific studies,
and their surprising relevance today, in showing that the most important analysis of trends comes
from studies spread over great amounts of time, as well as criticizing modern, short-term studies
that can miss long-term patterns that would have potential to force us into changing our ways as
a people.
Brand contemplates, in detail, the hopeful merging of our concept of now and our view
of progress as a whole (as opposed to that of our lifetime or even shorter). He laments how our
focus is drawn to the sudden and immediate occurrences, while brushing over the gradual, more
permanently harmful changes that occur. The inherent selfishness within all of us decreases the
general responsibility that we feel for our actions, as we are aware of our own mortality and the
fact that we may not have to live with some of the decisions that we have made. According to
Brand, it is most often with posterity in mind that some choose to look forward past the scope of
their own lifetimes, and it is with this obligation to familial values (extremely prominent in a
society such as ours) that our responsibilities are extended beyond immediate reaction. Brand
identifies the importance, as well, of endeavours that can progress slowly over large amounts of
time, in order to be able to absorb faults that may exist within them; he reiterates that time spent
can be the only difference between an impossible and an easy task. Brands final point
differentiates between the finite games which we are familiar with (which include fixed rules, a
single winner-takes-all system and seek an end goal) and the larger, infinite games which are
always open to adaptations and seek only continuance.

Taryn Mulvihill
Paper 13
These selected readings are absolutely fascinating, in that they challenge an inherent
sense of self-preservation that should block such philosophies from ever sprouting into the minds
of those who succumb to it. I understand the appeal of serving posterity, as those in succession
can be considered extensions of oneself, or even a continuance of ones legacy, in a sense, which
thus can return to the assumption of mankind as self-serving in general. However, posterity can
only account for a few lifespans of forethought in the future, as one can never be guaranteed of
how the family line may twist and turn over the years. This leaves me wondering about the
motivations for considering such a dramatically long timeline outside of ones lifetime. I can
understand the appeal of serving the greater good, as much contemplated in this class, but I
would like to see the point at which human nature and earthly desires within the average person,
and the author of this piece in particular, takes precedence over the more figurative rewards of
contributing to the future. While I absolutely agree with the points being made for an
improvement in how we prioritize our actions both as individuals and as a society, it is strictly in
a hypothetical sense, as there is no way to shift the thought process of the entire world in one fell
swoop, and the process could never occur in portions, as the need not to fall behind the pace of
others at no gain to oneself would without a doubt win out under nearly any circumstances. The
only point that Brand suggests that I disagree with is the notion of ones work being continued
and revered in future generations as a worthy motivation for a most people. While the occasional
literary hero sacrifices their life to ascend into myth and have their memory pasted upon the
minds of humanity forever, true human nature seeks gratification within their own time, in order
to relish it and feel fulfilled; the reason heroes like this are so few and far between, and thus a
rarity, is not because of their capacity to make a lasting impact, but because of their willingness
to do so, which others can respect, but will not necessarily want for themselves.
It surprised me that a field such as science, which is largely considered to be objective,
can be forced into the commercial, or even fashionable, rate that Brand suggests. However, once
prompted, it makes perfect sense. People often disregard older studies performed without the
most recent equipment as dated and inaccurate, so a study which began a long time ago, despite
its possibly pertinent contents, could be systematically ignored by the community surrounding it,
and more likely, the general public. This is enough to discourage scientists from performing their
work over large increments of time, as the scientific community progresses at such a rapid rate
that they may be left behind and waste their lifes work on something that may be disregarded
without a second thought.