What do you think?
Rate this book
Edge Question
What Is Your Dangerous Idea? : Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable
Düşünülmeyeni Düşünen Günümüzün Önde Gelen Düşünürleri
Kopernik'ten darwin'e, rıchard dawkıns'den jared dıamond, danıel c. Dennett,
Brıan greene, matt rıdley ve howard gardner'a tehlikeli fikirler
Dünyanın önde gelen bilim adamı ve düşünürleri hayatlarımızı daha iyi ya da daha kötü yönde değiştirecek cesur, dikkat çekici, tehlikeli fikirleri keşfediyorlar.
Tıbbi yöntemlerden, kişilik niteliklerine, evren üzerinde yalnız olduğumuz düşüncesinden evrenin temelde açıklanamaz olabileceğine kadar Senin Tehlikeli Fikrin Ne? kitabı dünyamızı ve yaşam tarzımızı sonsuza kadar alaşağı edecek korkusuz, nefes kesen ve bazen ürkütücü düşüncelere cesur bir bakışı bizlere sunuyor.
Bu kitap insanlık tarihi boyunca var olan konulardan ölüm sonrası hayat sorusuna ya da demokrasinin geleceğinden gerçeğin doğasına kadar çok sayıda konuyu kapsıyor. Kitap günümüzün en parlak beyinlerinden bazılarının ilgimizi çekecek konular üzerine yazdıklarını büyüleyici bir bakış açısıyla sunuyor.
"Çağımızın en patlayıcı fikirleri."
-Sunday Harald
"Zekice fikirler… Sonuçlar provokatif."
-Independent
"Tehlikeli fikirler her zaman bir tepkiyi tetikler. Onlar günümüzün yerleşik fikirlerine meydan okur. Daha derin olanları evreni ve onun neresinde yer aldığımızı algılayış biçimimizi ve yaşam şeklimizi tehdit eder ve bazıları da düşünüş tarzımızı büyük ölçüde etkisi altına alabilir."
-Sunday Times
Kopernik'ten darwin'e, rıchard dawkıns'den jared dıamond, danıel c. Dennett,
Brıan greene, matt rıdley ve howard gardner'a tehlikeli fikirler
Dünyanın önde gelen bilim adamı ve düşünürleri hayatlarımızı daha iyi ya da daha kötü yönde değiştirecek cesur, dikkat çekici, tehlikeli fikirleri keşfediyorlar.
Tıbbi yöntemlerden, kişilik niteliklerine, evren üzerinde yalnız olduğumuz düşüncesinden evrenin temelde açıklanamaz olabileceğine kadar Senin Tehlikeli Fikrin Ne? kitabı dünyamızı ve yaşam tarzımızı sonsuza kadar alaşağı edecek korkusuz, nefes kesen ve bazen ürkütücü düşüncelere cesur bir bakışı bizlere sunuyor.
Bu kitap insanlık tarihi boyunca var olan konulardan ölüm sonrası hayat sorusuna ya da demokrasinin geleceğinden gerçeğin doğasına kadar çok sayıda konuyu kapsıyor. Kitap günümüzün en parlak beyinlerinden bazılarının ilgimizi çekecek konular üzerine yazdıklarını büyüleyici bir bakış açısıyla sunuyor.
"Çağımızın en patlayıcı fikirleri."
-Sunday Harald
"Zekice fikirler… Sonuçlar provokatif."
-Independent
"Tehlikeli fikirler her zaman bir tepkiyi tetikler. Onlar günümüzün yerleşik fikirlerine meydan okur. Daha derin olanları evreni ve onun neresinde yer aldığımızı algılayış biçimimizi ve yaşam şeklimizi tehdit eder ve bazıları da düşünüş tarzımızı büyük ölçüde etkisi altına alabilir."
-Sunday Times
301 pages, Paperback
First published November 6, 2006
127 people are currently reading
1865 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews
December 10, 2007
Turns out today's leading thinkers are all scientists and all their dangerous ideas are only dangerous in the sense that other scientists might snub them at university cocktail parties.
April 14, 2022
Trust me, this volume will blow your mind and possibly scare you. John Brockman has gathered the world's foremost thinkers, from physicists to political scientists to biologists to ponder the most dangerous scenarios for our planet they personally believe if not advocate. Some chilling samples: the Australian physicist Paul Davies: "I believe climate change is real and that it is also too late to do anything about it." Or, Richard Gott on the Mediocrity Principle: "We are halfway through the life of the universe and there is no sign that either deep space travel or the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations is possible." Not for the faint-hearted.
January 18, 2020
To kolejna książka z serii kilku dostępnych publikacji przygotowanych pod redakcją Johna Brockmana, a które każdorazowo zawierają odpowiedzi naukowców na istotne pytania nurtujące ludzkość. Tym razem, zgodnie z tytułem - "Niebezpieczne idee we współczesnej nauce", ponad stu badaczy podzieliło się własnymi przemyśleniami i przekonaniami o ideach, które są niebezpieczne. Okazuje się, że niektórzy za 'niebezpieczne' idee uznali te, które są słuszne bądź prawdopodobnie prawdziwe, i których upowszechnienie czy wdrożenie wpłynęłyby na zmianę sposobu, w jaki widzimy świat i siebie. Drugą grupą są negatywne idee, których nie należy rozpowszechniać, bo będą miały negatywne skutki, albo są po prostu błędne.
Całość problematyki niebezpiecznych idei - ogólną dyskusję różnego ich rozumienia, wagię ich konsekwencji - świetnie opisał we wstępie Steven Pinker, a posłowiem opatrzył Richard Dawkins. Obie wypowiedzi są zgrabną klamrą ustalającą kontekst tematyki książki. Cześć naukowców odniosła się do własnych badań, na szczęście większość skupiła się na wielkich ogólnych ideach, które im zapewne towarzyszą od lat, jako coś niepokojącego czy fascynującego. Niemal wszystkie wypowiedzi były ciekawe, bo stanowiły szczere zdiagnozowanie pewnych istotnych obszarów dla ludzkości, jednostek, świata przyrody czy sensu istnienia - takiego metafizycznego.
Zdecydowanie najliczniejszą grupę idei stanowiły myśli dotyczące kondycji człowieka, rozumienia siebie i relacji z przyrodą. Czyli dominująca oś to nauki: biologia-psychologia-socjologia. Bardzo ciekawie wypadła grupa tematyczna wynikająca z zaprzęgania idei biologicznego ewolucjonizmu na grunt psychologii i socjologii. Jerry Coyne zwrócił uwagę na fakt, że należy w tym modnym nurcie nauk społecznych odróżniać to, co 'prawdopodobne' od tego, co 'możliwe', gdyż na tym polu jest sporo zamieszania. Szczególnie wnikliwie (czasem wzajemnie sprzecznymi tezami) zostały opisane kluczowe pojęcia nurtujące ludzi od setek lat: dusza (i jej brak), świadomość, transcendencja (i jej brak), wolna wola (i jej brak) oraz wyjątkowość jakościowa człowieka (i jej brak) w relacji z pozostałymi gatunkami ziemskiej fauny.
Na gruncie wyznawanych idei i preferowanych podejść do nauki, z lektury dało się wyczytać bardzo różne postawy, jako z góry zakładany system przekonań wartościujących i szeregujących wagę problemów. Wśród biologów i fizyków dominuje materializm czy wręcz naturalizm, w naukach społecznych preferowany dyskurs wynika raczej z idealizmu i akcentowania procesu poznawczego; w przypadku psychologów zarysowało się ciekawe dwubiegunowe podejście - dla części z nich istnieje tylko materia i jej konsekwencje dla zjawisk psychicznych, dla innych - wciąż atrakcyjne są idee kartezjańskiego dualizmu dusza-ciało. Taka obserwacja nie jest odkrywcza, choć już jej konsekwencje wydały mi się ciekawe. Niebezpieczność przytoczonych idei być może nie jest tak jednoznacznie rozłączna w grupach skonfrontowanych materialistów i idealistów, ale sposób wnioskowania już tak. Dla przyrodników odzieranie człowieka z duszy jest być może niebezpieczne dla społeczeństw i krążących w nim stereotypów, ale mimo to pożądane i nieuchronne, zaś wśród badaczy społecznych sama próba doszukiwania się biologii w relacjach kulturowych czasem nazywana jest niebezpieczną profanacją i czymś, w ostatecznym rozrachunku, szkodliwym.
Po lekturze książki uświadomiłem sobie, jak różnie ludzie interpretują sedno omawianego zagadnienia. Dla niektórych pewne idee są niebezpieczne, bo zagrażają wprost życiu, jako takiemu (katastrofy natury kosmicznej czy ekologicznej), inni skupili się raczej na podzieleniu się pewnymi meta-przemyśleniami. W przypadku tych ostatnich, najbardziej spodobała mi się wypowiedź filozofa Nicholasa Humphreya, która jest właściwie wyłącznie cytatem z Bertranda Russella:
"Chcę przedłożyć czytelnikowi do rozważenia doktrynę, która, jak się obawiam, może się wydać niesłychanie paradoksalna i wywrotowa. Według tej doktryny jest rzeczą niepożądaną wierzyć jakiemuś twierdzeniu, gdy nie ma żadnej podstawy do przypuszczenia, że jest ono prawdziwe."
"Niebezpieczne idee" czyta się dobrze na wielu poziomach. Analizując różne sposoby wnioskowania, możliwe wizje kondycji świata czy wnikliwe obserwacje poparte dogłębną wiedzą, można doświadczyć przyjemności z intelektualnej przygody, szczególnie w przypadku naszej niezgody ze stawianymi przez niektórych tezami. Sporo, czasem zaskakujących obserwacji, wprawiało mnie w konsternację, czasem w zdziwienie po przeanalizowaniu nieubłaganej logiki wewnętrznej jakiegoś wywodu. Atrakcyjność książki tkwi również w liczbie i wielobarwności rozmówców cechujących się różną wrażliwością, doświadczeniem życiowych i fascynacjami zawodowymi. To wszystko ostatecznie daje czytelnikowi frajdę z lektury.
Chyba niebezpieczną ideą jest świadome pozbawienie się przyjemności z lektury książek pod redakcją Brockmana. Polecam ją wszystkim - optymistom, pesymistom, 'humanistom', 'ścisłowcom', realistom i marzycielom.
BARDZO DOBRE - 8/10
Całość problematyki niebezpiecznych idei - ogólną dyskusję różnego ich rozumienia, wagię ich konsekwencji - świetnie opisał we wstępie Steven Pinker, a posłowiem opatrzył Richard Dawkins. Obie wypowiedzi są zgrabną klamrą ustalającą kontekst tematyki książki. Cześć naukowców odniosła się do własnych badań, na szczęście większość skupiła się na wielkich ogólnych ideach, które im zapewne towarzyszą od lat, jako coś niepokojącego czy fascynującego. Niemal wszystkie wypowiedzi były ciekawe, bo stanowiły szczere zdiagnozowanie pewnych istotnych obszarów dla ludzkości, jednostek, świata przyrody czy sensu istnienia - takiego metafizycznego.
Zdecydowanie najliczniejszą grupę idei stanowiły myśli dotyczące kondycji człowieka, rozumienia siebie i relacji z przyrodą. Czyli dominująca oś to nauki: biologia-psychologia-socjologia. Bardzo ciekawie wypadła grupa tematyczna wynikająca z zaprzęgania idei biologicznego ewolucjonizmu na grunt psychologii i socjologii. Jerry Coyne zwrócił uwagę na fakt, że należy w tym modnym nurcie nauk społecznych odróżniać to, co 'prawdopodobne' od tego, co 'możliwe', gdyż na tym polu jest sporo zamieszania. Szczególnie wnikliwie (czasem wzajemnie sprzecznymi tezami) zostały opisane kluczowe pojęcia nurtujące ludzi od setek lat: dusza (i jej brak), świadomość, transcendencja (i jej brak), wolna wola (i jej brak) oraz wyjątkowość jakościowa człowieka (i jej brak) w relacji z pozostałymi gatunkami ziemskiej fauny.
Na gruncie wyznawanych idei i preferowanych podejść do nauki, z lektury dało się wyczytać bardzo różne postawy, jako z góry zakładany system przekonań wartościujących i szeregujących wagę problemów. Wśród biologów i fizyków dominuje materializm czy wręcz naturalizm, w naukach społecznych preferowany dyskurs wynika raczej z idealizmu i akcentowania procesu poznawczego; w przypadku psychologów zarysowało się ciekawe dwubiegunowe podejście - dla części z nich istnieje tylko materia i jej konsekwencje dla zjawisk psychicznych, dla innych - wciąż atrakcyjne są idee kartezjańskiego dualizmu dusza-ciało. Taka obserwacja nie jest odkrywcza, choć już jej konsekwencje wydały mi się ciekawe. Niebezpieczność przytoczonych idei być może nie jest tak jednoznacznie rozłączna w grupach skonfrontowanych materialistów i idealistów, ale sposób wnioskowania już tak. Dla przyrodników odzieranie człowieka z duszy jest być może niebezpieczne dla społeczeństw i krążących w nim stereotypów, ale mimo to pożądane i nieuchronne, zaś wśród badaczy społecznych sama próba doszukiwania się biologii w relacjach kulturowych czasem nazywana jest niebezpieczną profanacją i czymś, w ostatecznym rozrachunku, szkodliwym.
Po lekturze książki uświadomiłem sobie, jak różnie ludzie interpretują sedno omawianego zagadnienia. Dla niektórych pewne idee są niebezpieczne, bo zagrażają wprost życiu, jako takiemu (katastrofy natury kosmicznej czy ekologicznej), inni skupili się raczej na podzieleniu się pewnymi meta-przemyśleniami. W przypadku tych ostatnich, najbardziej spodobała mi się wypowiedź filozofa Nicholasa Humphreya, która jest właściwie wyłącznie cytatem z Bertranda Russella:
"Chcę przedłożyć czytelnikowi do rozważenia doktrynę, która, jak się obawiam, może się wydać niesłychanie paradoksalna i wywrotowa. Według tej doktryny jest rzeczą niepożądaną wierzyć jakiemuś twierdzeniu, gdy nie ma żadnej podstawy do przypuszczenia, że jest ono prawdziwe."
"Niebezpieczne idee" czyta się dobrze na wielu poziomach. Analizując różne sposoby wnioskowania, możliwe wizje kondycji świata czy wnikliwe obserwacje poparte dogłębną wiedzą, można doświadczyć przyjemności z intelektualnej przygody, szczególnie w przypadku naszej niezgody ze stawianymi przez niektórych tezami. Sporo, czasem zaskakujących obserwacji, wprawiało mnie w konsternację, czasem w zdziwienie po przeanalizowaniu nieubłaganej logiki wewnętrznej jakiegoś wywodu. Atrakcyjność książki tkwi również w liczbie i wielobarwności rozmówców cechujących się różną wrażliwością, doświadczeniem życiowych i fascynacjami zawodowymi. To wszystko ostatecznie daje czytelnikowi frajdę z lektury.
Chyba niebezpieczną ideą jest świadome pozbawienie się przyjemności z lektury książek pod redakcją Brockmana. Polecam ją wszystkim - optymistom, pesymistom, 'humanistom', 'ścisłowcom', realistom i marzycielom.
BARDZO DOBRE - 8/10
December 10, 2010
A collection of short essays about the next "dangerous idea". Copernicus's idea that the earth went round the moon and Darwin's idea of evolution are given as the stock examples of ideas that were dangerous in the past. What will be proved true in the future that we would find difficult to believe today?
I found the articles to be very hit and miss. They variously seemed too obvious, too esoteric or barely worth mentioning. And too many were of the navel gazing "the idea of a dangerous idea is dangerous" or variations. One of the problems is that there are a lot of short articles and they've been arranged so that the themes follow on from one writer to the next; this makes for some degree of redundancy. There is a lot here that's interesting to read but the book as a whole wasn't gripping.
I found the articles to be very hit and miss. They variously seemed too obvious, too esoteric or barely worth mentioning. And too many were of the navel gazing "the idea of a dangerous idea is dangerous" or variations. One of the problems is that there are a lot of short articles and they've been arranged so that the themes follow on from one writer to the next; this makes for some degree of redundancy. There is a lot here that's interesting to read but the book as a whole wasn't gripping.
May 24, 2017
I have mixed feelings about this book, and similar Edge.org compilations.
The Good: This was an easy read. I do appreciate how the multiple authors made their ideas accessible, easy to digest, and uncomplicated enough to be thought-provoking.
The Bad: There's a lot of navel-gazing and mental masturbation in here. This is my biggest gripe with this series. Yes, it's a set of ideas, but few provoke action and an urgency to problem-solve. If you're going to bring "the best thinkers in the world" together, then at least present some thoughts on how to solve the mess they're presenting as our current state. Also, there are few women represented in this collection....less than 15%! This disappoints me; there are many, many intelligent and thoughtful women academics out there. Let their voices be heard as well.
The Good: This was an easy read. I do appreciate how the multiple authors made their ideas accessible, easy to digest, and uncomplicated enough to be thought-provoking.
The Bad: There's a lot of navel-gazing and mental masturbation in here. This is my biggest gripe with this series. Yes, it's a set of ideas, but few provoke action and an urgency to problem-solve. If you're going to bring "the best thinkers in the world" together, then at least present some thoughts on how to solve the mess they're presenting as our current state. Also, there are few women represented in this collection....less than 15%! This disappoints me; there are many, many intelligent and thoughtful women academics out there. Let their voices be heard as well.
January 24, 2009
This volume reprints material from Edge.org, one of the most consistently stimulating sites on the Web. Tasty, bite-sized, and challenging essays that are pretty much guaranteed to get any reader annoyed...and thinking.
July 14, 2019
A treasure of ideas from 108 of our most creative minds
(Plus Richard Dawkins, who writes an Afterword.)
I’ll give you some dangerous ideas. Take steps to reduce the human population worldwide to around a billion people and keep it there. Take the biological desire of people to play house and be mothers and fathers, and redirect it into responsible stewardship of the planet.
Don’t like that one? Seems too draconian? How about this? End all tax exempt status for churches, mosques, etc. (Resounding voice coming onstage: “Only when they tear my cold, dead fingers from the collection plate!”)
Here’s another: realize that to know all is to forgive all, and that we are all just biological automations acting out our genetic drives and have no more free will than an ant on the pheromone trail. Deal with people acting in violent antisocial ways by (1) curing them with psychopharmacology, surgery, retraining, or (2) euthanasia.
Decriminalize street drug use. Allow Phillip Morris to get into the cannabis business and Merck to process opium into heroin. If some people become dysfunctional, see previous dangerous idea and employ it.
Well, none of John Brockman’s esteemed contributors came up with anything quite THAT dangerous, probably because the danger of such ideas is most immediately to the person who would advance them! Psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse gives us some guidance on why such ideas are not being advanced in this book in his modest essay on “Unspeakable Ideas.” (pp. 193-195) Here’s one: “when your business group is trying to deal with a savvy competitor, say, ‘It seems to me that their product is superior, because they are smarter than we are.’” Also unspeakable is, “I will only do what benefits me.” Nesse writes that saying something like that is akin to committing “social suicide.”
David Lykken thinks that parents ought to be required to get licenses to parent and prove they are twenty-one years old, married, and self-supporting. (pp. 175-176)
Jordan Pollack urges us (tongue in cheek, I presume) to embrace “faith-based science.” He writes, “physics could sing the psalm that perpetual motion would solve the energy crisis…” with God “on our side to repeal the second law of thermodynamics!” “Astronomy could embrace astrology and do grassroots PR with daily horoscopes to gain mass support for a new space program.” (pp. 156-158)
John Allen Paulos joins the Buddha and David Hume and presents the self as “an ever-changing collection of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, that is not an essential and persistent entity but a conceptual chimera.” (p. 152)
Some of the other “dangerous ideas” concern such things as science versus religion (e.g., Sam Harris’s “Science Must Destroy Religion” and Philip W. Anderson’s “The Posterior Probability of Any Particular God Is Pretty Small”); exciting speculations (Terrence Sejnowski’s “When Will the Internet Become Aware of Itself?”), cosmological conjectures (Brian Greene’s “The Multiverse,” and Leonard Susskind’s “The ‘Landscape’”).
Some of the ideas are not dangerous at all of course, and some are only dangerous to certain segments of society. The idea that the Christian God does not exist is no skin off my teeth and no Buddhist feels threatened by it, but television evangelicals find it downright scary. Judith Rich Harris advances the idea that parents really don’t shape their children’s morays (their peers and the larger society does). This idea isn’t threatening at all unless you are a Pygmalion sort of parent infused with a weighty sense of responsibility, and in that case, her idea can help you to chill out.
Some other ideas may or may not be seen as dangerous. Karl Sabbagh suggests that “The Human Brain Will Never Understand the Universe,” and Lawrence M. Krauss wants us to know that “The World May Be Fundamentally Inexplicable.” Personally I think they’re both right, but that shouldn’t keep us from trying to expand the range of our knowledge and understanding. Seth Lloyd even goes so far as to suggest that one of our ideas “is likely to have the unintended consequence of destroying everything we know.” He adds that “we cannot stop creating and exploring new ideas. The genie of ingenuity is out of the bottle. To suppress the power of ideas will hasten catastrophe, not avert it.” (p. 101)
There are several essays on how drugs might, can, and will affect us (e.g., “Drugs May Change the Patterns of Human Love” by Helen Fisher, and “Using Medications to Change Personality” by Samuel Barondes). There are essays on politics and economics (e.g., Michael Shermer’s ode to fiscal conservativism and social liberalism, “Where Goods Cross Frontiers, Armies Won’t” and Matt Ridley’s “Government Is the Problem, Not the Solution”), and on the dangers and promises of futuristic technologies by Ray Kurzweil, Freeman J. Dyson and others. In fact there is so much in this book that a reader could study the ideas for decades--seriously--and hardly scratch the surface of what is implied, hoped for, dreamed of, and feared. It is a great collection of ideas, a masterful work of compilation and editing by science’s most talented and creative editor, John Brockman. Don’t miss this book. It’s even better than Brockman’s previous collection “What We Believe But Cannot Prove.”
Let me throw in one more dangerous idea not in the book (lest I wax too sanguine): suppose that by bioengineering violent aggression out of the human genome (which seems like a good idea) we end up with something like H.G. Wells’ Eloi? Can it be true that humans must be violently aggressive, and if not, will become stagnant and exploitable? One might argue that there would then be no exploiter, but should one appear what would--could--we do?
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
(Plus Richard Dawkins, who writes an Afterword.)
I’ll give you some dangerous ideas. Take steps to reduce the human population worldwide to around a billion people and keep it there. Take the biological desire of people to play house and be mothers and fathers, and redirect it into responsible stewardship of the planet.
Don’t like that one? Seems too draconian? How about this? End all tax exempt status for churches, mosques, etc. (Resounding voice coming onstage: “Only when they tear my cold, dead fingers from the collection plate!”)
Here’s another: realize that to know all is to forgive all, and that we are all just biological automations acting out our genetic drives and have no more free will than an ant on the pheromone trail. Deal with people acting in violent antisocial ways by (1) curing them with psychopharmacology, surgery, retraining, or (2) euthanasia.
Decriminalize street drug use. Allow Phillip Morris to get into the cannabis business and Merck to process opium into heroin. If some people become dysfunctional, see previous dangerous idea and employ it.
Well, none of John Brockman’s esteemed contributors came up with anything quite THAT dangerous, probably because the danger of such ideas is most immediately to the person who would advance them! Psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse gives us some guidance on why such ideas are not being advanced in this book in his modest essay on “Unspeakable Ideas.” (pp. 193-195) Here’s one: “when your business group is trying to deal with a savvy competitor, say, ‘It seems to me that their product is superior, because they are smarter than we are.’” Also unspeakable is, “I will only do what benefits me.” Nesse writes that saying something like that is akin to committing “social suicide.”
David Lykken thinks that parents ought to be required to get licenses to parent and prove they are twenty-one years old, married, and self-supporting. (pp. 175-176)
Jordan Pollack urges us (tongue in cheek, I presume) to embrace “faith-based science.” He writes, “physics could sing the psalm that perpetual motion would solve the energy crisis…” with God “on our side to repeal the second law of thermodynamics!” “Astronomy could embrace astrology and do grassroots PR with daily horoscopes to gain mass support for a new space program.” (pp. 156-158)
John Allen Paulos joins the Buddha and David Hume and presents the self as “an ever-changing collection of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, that is not an essential and persistent entity but a conceptual chimera.” (p. 152)
Some of the other “dangerous ideas” concern such things as science versus religion (e.g., Sam Harris’s “Science Must Destroy Religion” and Philip W. Anderson’s “The Posterior Probability of Any Particular God Is Pretty Small”); exciting speculations (Terrence Sejnowski’s “When Will the Internet Become Aware of Itself?”), cosmological conjectures (Brian Greene’s “The Multiverse,” and Leonard Susskind’s “The ‘Landscape’”).
Some of the ideas are not dangerous at all of course, and some are only dangerous to certain segments of society. The idea that the Christian God does not exist is no skin off my teeth and no Buddhist feels threatened by it, but television evangelicals find it downright scary. Judith Rich Harris advances the idea that parents really don’t shape their children’s morays (their peers and the larger society does). This idea isn’t threatening at all unless you are a Pygmalion sort of parent infused with a weighty sense of responsibility, and in that case, her idea can help you to chill out.
Some other ideas may or may not be seen as dangerous. Karl Sabbagh suggests that “The Human Brain Will Never Understand the Universe,” and Lawrence M. Krauss wants us to know that “The World May Be Fundamentally Inexplicable.” Personally I think they’re both right, but that shouldn’t keep us from trying to expand the range of our knowledge and understanding. Seth Lloyd even goes so far as to suggest that one of our ideas “is likely to have the unintended consequence of destroying everything we know.” He adds that “we cannot stop creating and exploring new ideas. The genie of ingenuity is out of the bottle. To suppress the power of ideas will hasten catastrophe, not avert it.” (p. 101)
There are several essays on how drugs might, can, and will affect us (e.g., “Drugs May Change the Patterns of Human Love” by Helen Fisher, and “Using Medications to Change Personality” by Samuel Barondes). There are essays on politics and economics (e.g., Michael Shermer’s ode to fiscal conservativism and social liberalism, “Where Goods Cross Frontiers, Armies Won’t” and Matt Ridley’s “Government Is the Problem, Not the Solution”), and on the dangers and promises of futuristic technologies by Ray Kurzweil, Freeman J. Dyson and others. In fact there is so much in this book that a reader could study the ideas for decades--seriously--and hardly scratch the surface of what is implied, hoped for, dreamed of, and feared. It is a great collection of ideas, a masterful work of compilation and editing by science’s most talented and creative editor, John Brockman. Don’t miss this book. It’s even better than Brockman’s previous collection “What We Believe But Cannot Prove.”
Let me throw in one more dangerous idea not in the book (lest I wax too sanguine): suppose that by bioengineering violent aggression out of the human genome (which seems like a good idea) we end up with something like H.G. Wells’ Eloi? Can it be true that humans must be violently aggressive, and if not, will become stagnant and exploitable? One might argue that there would then be no exploiter, but should one appear what would--could--we do?
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
January 17, 2020
El libro es una composición de las respuestas de ciento ocho pensadores de diferentes campos a la petición de presentar una idea que consideren "peligrosa".
La traducción de esta pregunta ha sido diferente para unos que para otros, pero todas las preguntas bordean algún extremo del pensamiento actual, y el libro se vuelve una catarata de frases citables y de conceptos agresivos y a los que no te puedes acercar sin pincharte. Me recuerda al chiste sobre tener sexo con un puercoespín.
La variedad de las respuestas hace que con toda seguridad a todo el mundo le parecerán algunas banales o insustanciales. Pero da igual, muchas otras merecen una lectura lenta y atenta, y unas horas de pensamiento aterrado sobre la posibilidad de que tengan razón.
Muy recomendable, y se va a quedar en una estantería a disposición para una revisión futura.
La traducción de esta pregunta ha sido diferente para unos que para otros, pero todas las preguntas bordean algún extremo del pensamiento actual, y el libro se vuelve una catarata de frases citables y de conceptos agresivos y a los que no te puedes acercar sin pincharte. Me recuerda al chiste sobre tener sexo con un puercoespín.
La variedad de las respuestas hace que con toda seguridad a todo el mundo le parecerán algunas banales o insustanciales. Pero da igual, muchas otras merecen una lectura lenta y atenta, y unas horas de pensamiento aterrado sobre la posibilidad de que tengan razón.
Muy recomendable, y se va a quedar en una estantería a disposición para una revisión futura.
October 23, 2017
SIX WORD REVIEW: God, war, disease, technology, the universe.
November 10, 2011
A mixed bag, but well worth reading. This is a collection of over 100 short-to-very-short essays by leading thinkers in a variety of fields, about both their interpretations of what would constitute a dangerous idea and what specific ideas they think qualify.
Quite a few were intriguing and seemed dead on as far as their potential impact on society in general or on subsets such as scientific disciplines, politics, or industries. There were a number that I thought didn't deserve inclusion because they were based on blatantly incorrect assumptions, mostly about sociological phenomena like crime rates or economic factors. And there were some I just couldn't quite understand because they were esoteric beyond what I had the background to understand, mostly in exotic areas of physics.
For me, the most valuable find in this book isn't any of the specific things about which its contributors wrote, but the fact that this is one of an annual series from a website called www.edge.org, which exists to seek out leaders in fields of thought and explore what questions they're asking themselves and the answers they're reaching, if any. I'll definitely be bookmarking that site, and I want to dig into the questions and answers compiled there from other years.
Quite a few were intriguing and seemed dead on as far as their potential impact on society in general or on subsets such as scientific disciplines, politics, or industries. There were a number that I thought didn't deserve inclusion because they were based on blatantly incorrect assumptions, mostly about sociological phenomena like crime rates or economic factors. And there were some I just couldn't quite understand because they were esoteric beyond what I had the background to understand, mostly in exotic areas of physics.
For me, the most valuable find in this book isn't any of the specific things about which its contributors wrote, but the fact that this is one of an annual series from a website called www.edge.org, which exists to seek out leaders in fields of thought and explore what questions they're asking themselves and the answers they're reaching, if any. I'll definitely be bookmarking that site, and I want to dig into the questions and answers compiled there from other years.
December 14, 2020
Every year the thinkers of Edge write a short essay in response to an annual question, which has resulted in a series of thought provoking collections. But this one question may be the most important to push the edge of human knowledge; ideas that were once deemed provocative, immoral, even dangerous, have since been accepted by society at large. In our time, they have been supplanted by other ideas we might deem dangerous, some of which could possibly be harmful to mankind. Should such ideas be frowned upon, ridiculed, kept secret, be destroyed? Or should they be sensibly discussed in the open? This is an important book to read, mind-extending and mind-bending.
January 1, 2015
A really good collection to enjoy the "dangerous ideas" from 108 leading thinkers. It is a wide range, roughly and well grouped. It is definitely a good "meta-thinking" exercise - exploring the ideas themselves, then thinking about "What makes an idea dangerous" and even "If an idea is dangerous, is there some responsibility to do something about/with that idea?" (and is that a dangerous idea?) I found some of them very compelling, a few boring/tautological, and some off-the-mark or boring. But overall, worth a read especially when you have the luxury of some time to enjoy.
July 1, 2014
By and large, these short essays (a few only half a page) are thought provoking and enjoyable to read. It would be fun to read the essays one by one with a friend and then discuss the issues each raised.
August 6, 2018
Little New Under the Sun
Cue ominous organ music - there are some things Man Is Not Meant To Know!
(But we'd be better off if we did!)
As a long time SF buff I have to say that very few of the ideas expressed were that unusual or dangerous, and some were somewhat predictable. The book consists of 110 visions (including the forward by Stephen Pinker and afterword by Richard Dawkins) that the various authors consider to be disruptive or game changing. The "guest list" is fairly impressive, however most wrote of ideas that I've come across either in story form or in other writings - perhaps reassuring that very bright people swim in the same pool of memes as the rest of us. Quite a few worried about our reaching limits of scientific knowledge. About a dozen dealt with atheism (ho hum) or conceptualizations of religion that were at the level of a high school squeal session. Quite a few expressed concern over our concepts of self or society.
Danny Hillis' non response that the ideas he had in mind are too dangerous to express is intriguing if you are aware of his work on Clock Of The Long Now a research initiative to store important human knowledge so that it can be recovered in the far future - how to recreate the such as where are nuclear waste sites located - held against the collapse of civilization. He's been thinking of the truly dangerous for over a decade - it would have been quite interesting to know what possible calamities he's come up with!
So what is it that makes for a dangerous idea? To my mind it is not the idea itself that is dangerous, but the potential outcome that might occur if that idea is either acted upon or not acted upon. Thus the idea that God might require human sacrifice is not particularly dangerous as Aztec and Canaanite cults are none too popular at the moment, whereas global warming is dangerous because we either might on act on it, or act on it improperly. Wallet sized nuclear bombs (or home brew nuclear energy - covered in one essay) is only dangerous if technically feasible, which at the moment it is not.
On the plus side most of the contributors have produced well polished summaries of their thoughts and this does. Among the more interesting pieces were Rushkoff's "Open Source Currency" which I thought was an interesting recasting of the economic value of reputation in a social context, Judith Harris who states that there is no proof that parents have any influence on children (I disagree with the conclusion - our influence may not be what we intended but it's often, not always, there, however the lack of studies was surprising). I've always enjoyed Stewart Brand, and though his idea was stimulating - historians should advise politicians - not very new - I just read that this was done in preparation for the Paris 1919 peace conference - however the material created did not show great evidence of being used. I didn't think it dangerous, however I did get a good book reference out of it. Ray Kurzweil has 2 big ideas - he chose immortality in our time and over the singularity.
I do think that the discussion itself is interesting. For example about a week ago there was a "Dangerous Idea" conference in Sydney Australia. And with that in mind I've started a discussion group below.
Overall not quite up to expectations but that's more me than the text itself which isn't bad and does the job as a springboard for considering a few basic questions. It's also another example IMHO of why Amazon's 1-5 rating isn't fine tuned enough. I'd rate it about 3.4/5 and in spite of the inexpensive price I'd recommend giving it a browse in a bookstore or library before buying.
Cue ominous organ music - there are some things Man Is Not Meant To Know!
(But we'd be better off if we did!)
As a long time SF buff I have to say that very few of the ideas expressed were that unusual or dangerous, and some were somewhat predictable. The book consists of 110 visions (including the forward by Stephen Pinker and afterword by Richard Dawkins) that the various authors consider to be disruptive or game changing. The "guest list" is fairly impressive, however most wrote of ideas that I've come across either in story form or in other writings - perhaps reassuring that very bright people swim in the same pool of memes as the rest of us. Quite a few worried about our reaching limits of scientific knowledge. About a dozen dealt with atheism (ho hum) or conceptualizations of religion that were at the level of a high school squeal session. Quite a few expressed concern over our concepts of self or society.
Danny Hillis' non response that the ideas he had in mind are too dangerous to express is intriguing if you are aware of his work on Clock Of The Long Now a research initiative to store important human knowledge so that it can be recovered in the far future - how to recreate the such as where are nuclear waste sites located - held against the collapse of civilization. He's been thinking of the truly dangerous for over a decade - it would have been quite interesting to know what possible calamities he's come up with!
So what is it that makes for a dangerous idea? To my mind it is not the idea itself that is dangerous, but the potential outcome that might occur if that idea is either acted upon or not acted upon. Thus the idea that God might require human sacrifice is not particularly dangerous as Aztec and Canaanite cults are none too popular at the moment, whereas global warming is dangerous because we either might on act on it, or act on it improperly. Wallet sized nuclear bombs (or home brew nuclear energy - covered in one essay) is only dangerous if technically feasible, which at the moment it is not.
On the plus side most of the contributors have produced well polished summaries of their thoughts and this does. Among the more interesting pieces were Rushkoff's "Open Source Currency" which I thought was an interesting recasting of the economic value of reputation in a social context, Judith Harris who states that there is no proof that parents have any influence on children (I disagree with the conclusion - our influence may not be what we intended but it's often, not always, there, however the lack of studies was surprising). I've always enjoyed Stewart Brand, and though his idea was stimulating - historians should advise politicians - not very new - I just read that this was done in preparation for the Paris 1919 peace conference - however the material created did not show great evidence of being used. I didn't think it dangerous, however I did get a good book reference out of it. Ray Kurzweil has 2 big ideas - he chose immortality in our time and over the singularity.
I do think that the discussion itself is interesting. For example about a week ago there was a "Dangerous Idea" conference in Sydney Australia. And with that in mind I've started a discussion group below.
Overall not quite up to expectations but that's more me than the text itself which isn't bad and does the job as a springboard for considering a few basic questions. It's also another example IMHO of why Amazon's 1-5 rating isn't fine tuned enough. I'd rate it about 3.4/5 and in spite of the inexpensive price I'd recommend giving it a browse in a bookstore or library before buying.
October 24, 2023
From Amazon.com - From Copernicus to Darwin, to current-day thinkers, scientists have always promoted theories and unveiled discoveries that challenge everything society holds dear; ideas with both positive and dire consequences. Many thoughts that resonate today are dangerous not because they are assumed to be false, but because they might turn out to be true.
What do the world's leading scientists and thinkers consider to be their most dangerous idea? Through the leading online forum Edge (www.edge.org), the call went out, and this compelling and easily digestible volume collects the answers. From using medication to permanently alter our personalities to contemplating a universe in which we are utterly alone, to the idea that the universe might be fundamentally inexplicable, What Is Your Dangerous Idea? takes an unflinching look at the daring, breathtaking, sometimes terrifying thoughts that could forever alter our world and the way we live in it.
Interesting reading with 108 articles written by extraordinarily bright people, including Howard Gardner of Multiple Intelligence and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi of Flow fame, most (if not all) of them with no real sense of what is really Truth. I would have liked someone to comment on “Jesus is right” as the MOST dangerous idea. Sadly, nothing even came close.
What do the world's leading scientists and thinkers consider to be their most dangerous idea? Through the leading online forum Edge (www.edge.org), the call went out, and this compelling and easily digestible volume collects the answers. From using medication to permanently alter our personalities to contemplating a universe in which we are utterly alone, to the idea that the universe might be fundamentally inexplicable, What Is Your Dangerous Idea? takes an unflinching look at the daring, breathtaking, sometimes terrifying thoughts that could forever alter our world and the way we live in it.
Interesting reading with 108 articles written by extraordinarily bright people, including Howard Gardner of Multiple Intelligence and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi of Flow fame, most (if not all) of them with no real sense of what is really Truth. I would have liked someone to comment on “Jesus is right” as the MOST dangerous idea. Sadly, nothing even came close.
August 9, 2025
The Introduction by Steven Pinker is well worth a read, but that's about the first and last time you'll read about dangerous ideas in this book. The rest of the book is just the pretty generic milktoast kind of "dangerous", well within the borders of the overtone window, which just goes to show the chilling effects that are produced by attaching your real name to those ideas.
This book would have benefited from letting people send in their dangerous ideas anonymously, maybe then somebody would have said something actually dangerous.
The way it is, the book just misses the mark and fails to deliver on the promise of the title. Ignoring that, it falls in line with the rest of the Edge Question series.
This book would have benefited from letting people send in their dangerous ideas anonymously, maybe then somebody would have said something actually dangerous.
The way it is, the book just misses the mark and fails to deliver on the promise of the title. Ignoring that, it falls in line with the rest of the Edge Question series.
June 17, 2017
This book is a collection of 108 short essays from working scientists with the simple question "What is your dangerous idea?"
This leads to a range of topics covering religion, free will, our place in the universe, and lots of other topics. It is ended by a good afterword by Richard Dawkins.
As with all collections some I really liked and some I didn't. I found it interesting to read and I learnt a lot. The Edge magazine seem to do these kind of books every year and I will keep an eye out for them in the future.
This leads to a range of topics covering religion, free will, our place in the universe, and lots of other topics. It is ended by a good afterword by Richard Dawkins.
As with all collections some I really liked and some I didn't. I found it interesting to read and I learnt a lot. The Edge magazine seem to do these kind of books every year and I will keep an eye out for them in the future.
September 22, 2018
I am a bit disappointed with this book. I was expecting the ideas to be more radical. The ideas that we don’t have a soul or that the difference between animals and us is more in degree than in kind for example are not new or thought provoking anymore to me. Also, some of the authors delivered barely a snippet. It felt like getting a bunch of appetizers but no main course. One positive though is that I will be following up on some of the authors’ other books. They were the ones who seemed to have an interesting proposition but did not elaborate much.
January 30, 2025
DNF. I don't mind that several of the ideas posed incited outrage and disquiet in me -- that's the point. However, I kept getting hung up on how "Today's leading thinkers" are predominantly male, Western academics. I can't speak to ethnicity, but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the authors in this book are white. Besides, in the almost 20 years since this was originally published, many of the ideas herein have been disproved or are no longer relevant.
May 10, 2018
Such a great concept to read about and particularly good a decade and change after the fact where I could see some of these ideas had reached a larger society. Three stars primarily because some of the science essays were so academic and specific as to be nearly unreadable. But, this is a series of essays that I really enjoy and I'm looking forward to reading the next one.
January 14, 2019
Some of the essays are interesting, some are thought-provoking, but very few are "dangerous" or daring to venture into the "unthinkable." A handful of the writers use their space to rant against religion or other ideas that might have been dangerous to say in a different era but aren't dangerous now.
July 1, 2024
Interesting ideas, book could be a cool science fiction story prompt book. I found that a lot of terms and terminology and concepts went right over my head as someone who is a casual reader and not in a science field. It was written in 2005 so it’s also quite outdated in some chapters. Makes for a nice read if you’re out of options?
November 21, 2018
As other reviewers have said, it's a mixed bag. Some pieces are better than others. It's difficult to have a book like this be both cutting-edge but able to stand the test of time. I expect it's somewhat outdated by now. It's certainly thought-provoking, though.
August 1, 2022
Here be dragons. The amusing part of this book is, of course, the title. It brings to mind when other ideas, evolution for example, or the notion that women would vote, were thought to be so very dangerous. I gave this up about halfway through, I just thought it would have been more interesting.
May 17, 2023
A nice group of essays with a wide range of topics coming from some of the big names in academia and other places. Not every essay is truly gripping, but there are a lot of nuggets of information that are quite interesting and thought provoking.
January 1, 2024
I really loved reading quick snippets of dangerous ideas by such knowledgeable folks. I didn't agree, or become persuaded, by some of the ideas mentioned but a lot of them were incredibly interesting to consider and think about possible ramifications
April 4, 2025
It comes with the nature of the type of book, but it is quite humorous that such paradoxical ideas can both be seen as "dangerous ideas." For example, one is God is Real and another is Not Real. That litters this book, but that comes with the territory, for sure. It was a "fun" read.
July 1, 2018
Interesting essays. Some of them are more true today than when the book was published.
June 1, 2019
Too short to have useful thoughts. Lots of unimportant cliches. Interesting people to read separately would be Daniel Goleman, David Gelernter, and Helen Fisher.
October 3, 2019
Meh. Mostly edgelord stuff with a handful of interesting ideas.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews