The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World

[reason.on]

Just curious to know if anyone has read this title from 2005?

If anyone is interested, Josh Z has an interview with the author here: http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/05010...o-cookinham.php

http://www.diesel-ebooks.com/cgi-bin/item/0595798543

The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World

By Frederick Cookinham

Synopsis

"Do I think that Objectivism will be the philosophy of the future? I would say yes, but..."--Ayn Rand to Playboy Magazine, 1964.

"My views will probably be the norm in the future, but not right now."--Ayn Rand to Johnny Carson, 1967.

Will they? "The Age of Rand" describes what Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, will mean in practice--for good and ill. Rand expressed her controversial ideas in her best-selling novels, "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Every year, more commentators debate those ideas, often heatedly.

Frederick Cookinham asks questions no author has asked before:

· Would Objectivists destroy the environment in favor of rampant development?

· Why will Objectivist civilization be built on the oceans and in space?

· Is Objectivism a "Nietzschean Superman" philosophy?

Ayn Rand often said, "Check your premises, and watch your implications!" Explore, in "The Age of Rand," the astounding implications of this fast-growing and provocative new system of ideas. Some philosophy will dominate this new century--be prepared if it turns out to be Ayn Rand's.

"Frederick Cookinham has written something of great worth to thousands who have been affected by Rand's work."--Andrea Millen Rich, Laissez Faire Books.

[Barbara Branden]

Christian, the book is in the mail to me. I'll probably do a review of it.

Barbara

[Judith]

There's a discussion of this book and its author under the "Links" topic.

Judith

[emb021]

Hardfire, a public access show on Libertarianism out of New York, had a interview with the author. You can view the video on-line here. Pretty good, I thought:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4347842024693448209

Hardfire can be found at www.hardfire.net

[Graham Glover]

· Why will Objectivist civilization be built on the oceans and in space?

I've not read the book, nor have I read arguments as to why the above is true. Regardless, that's a pretty hefty claim, one I consder to be amusing. Don't get me wrong, both would be neat. Still, consider the following.

I'm not sure what "on the oceans" means. If he means a floating nation, that's an interesting concept, albeit an expensive one. A floating Objectivist nation would, by definition, be a producing nation. While it could be a focal point for information producers, not all Objectivists are capable of doing that. There would need to be some hard production of some kind, whether manufacturing, agriculture, livestock, or whatever. Living space will not be cheap. If he means an underwater nation, add the complication of bringing a living environment below the surface. That includes air and potable water. At nearly 1/2 lb pressure per square inch for each foot of depth, highly durable structures would be required even in relatively shallow water.

Space is supremely expensive to reach. Once outside Earth's atmosphere, you are exposed to considerable hard radiation from the Sun, deadly radiation that is almost completely filtered by our atmosphere. Assuming an Objectivist nation would prefer to live on a body (planet or moon) versus in orbit, where would it be? Only two worlds in our Solar System could even be considered - the Moon and Mars. The Moon has no atmosphere, no life, no apparent means of easily producing energy. While Mars has a very thin atmosphere (~1/100 of ours in density), it remains hostile to Earth life. It too has no life and no apparent means of easily producing energy. Humans haven't been to the Moon in over 30 years, and we've never walked on Mars.

Perchance I'm being harsh on the point about an Objectivist nation on the oceans and in space. Still, this rather extraordinary claim doesn't seem to hold to even a moment's consideration.

Thoughts?

[Jerry Biggers]

I added a brief review on Amazon.com's listing of Fred Cookinham's book. I found it to be a very enjoyable book dealing with the personalities and various movements within Objectivism over its past, present and future.

From the scope of his commentaries, Fred has obviously been closely involved in the Objectivist movement, particularly in New York, at least since the 1960's, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of the personalities and theories involved. Incidentally, Mr. Cookinham runs "walking tours" of "Ayn Rand's New York."

Most (maybe all) of the major disputes and ideological rifts are covered. In that sense (and only in that sense), the book is similar to Jeffrey Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult. While Mr. Walker seemed a be practicing a "scorched-earth" policy excoriating the movement (and, unfortunately, many of the Objectivist 'luminaries' provided the fuel for Walker's torch), this sort of vindictiveness is not found in The Age of Rand. Many of the same issues and occurences are covered, but Fred clearly does not have an "axe to grind" and is not on some sort of vendetta (as Walker clearly was). The many disputes and controversies are fairly covered and described with a benevolent sense of humor. There is no mean-spiritedness in this book, as there was in the Walker book.

Besides events within the movement, Mr. Cookinham also puts Objectivism into its historical and cultural context, describing the reactions of the non-Objectivists (conservatives and liberals) to Rand's books and the movement in general.

To top it off, Fred offers some very interesting speculations (some "alternative futures") on possible directions that Objectivism may develop in the future, and the effects on the culture that it may have.

I think most readers of Objectivist Living would find this to be enjoyable book to read and would gain an additional understanding about how Objectivism started and develped.

[MBM]

Space is supremely expensive to reach. Once outside Earth's atmosphere, you are exposed to considerable hard radiation from the Sun, deadly radiation that is almost completely filtered by our atmosphere. Assuming an Objectivist nation would prefer to live on a body (planet or moon) versus in orbit, where would it be? Only two worlds in our Solar System could even be considered - the Moon and Mars. The Moon has no atmosphere, no life, no apparent means of easily producing energy. While Mars has a very thin atmosphere (~1/100 of ours in density), it remains hostile to Earth life. It too has no life and no apparent means of easily producing energy. Humans haven't been to the Moon in over 30 years, and we've never walked on Mars.

Perchance I'm being harsh on the point about an Objectivist nation on the oceans and in space. Still, this rather extraordinary claim doesn't seem to hold to even a moment's consideration.

Thoughts?

What kind of timescale are you speaking of? Are you saying that there is no way mankind (Objectivist or otherwise) will *ever* settle on the Moon or Mars or elsewhere in space? Or just in a timeframe assumed in the book (which I haven't read either, but plan to as soon as it arrives from Amazon).

[Graham Glover]

What kind of timescale are you speaking of? Are you saying that there is no way mankind (Objectivist or otherwise) will *ever* settle on the Moon or Mars or elsewhere in space? Or just in a timeframe assumed in the book (which I haven't read either, but plan to as soon as it arrives from Amazon).

I don't see a settlement on either the Moon or Mars, at least for the foreseeable future (say 400 years). We *could* do it, but why? What are you going to get up there that you don't have here? What are you going to do there?

The Moon has nothing for us, save the potential for automated astronomical observatories. The far side would be great for radio astronomy, away from Earth radio interference. Mars has nothing for us either, and is only marginally less hostile than the Moon. Actually it is hostile in different ways. If you had the capability of interstellar travel and were searching for planets or moons to visit or inhabit, you certainly wouldn't consider the Moon and you'd only quickly glance at Mars. They'd both be unacceptable.

I've heard people claim the Moon and Mars are potentially springboards to the stars. I disagree. Going to the Moon or Mars is a matter of technology we do not have (re: we cannot do it today) but could develop with will and money. Going to the stars requires science we do not have and may never have. It's something we can and should pursue but at the moment the stars are beyond our reach.

[reason.on]

I'm not sure what "on the oceans" means. If he means a floating nation, that's an interesting concept, albeit an expensive one. A floating Objectivist nation would, by definition, be a producing nation. While it could be a focal point for information producers, not all Objectivists are capable of doing that. There would need to be some hard production of some kind, whether manufacturing, agriculture, livestock, or whatever. Living space will not be cheap.

The idea of a new, man-made island nation (committed to libertarian principles) was actually proposed some years ago...

http://oceania.org/

RCR

[Graham Glover]

I remember Oceana. There's also the Free State Project:

http://www.freestateproject.org/

http://freestateproject.org/about/mission.php

While not oriented to the oceans or space, the idea of a body of liberty oriented individuals organizing as a political unit is interesting. They're currently active.

[MBM]

What kind of timescale are you speaking of? Are you saying that there is no way mankind (Objectivist or otherwise) will *ever* settle on the Moon or Mars or elsewhere in space? Or just in a timeframe assumed in the book (which I haven't read either, but plan to as soon as it arrives from Amazon).

I don't see a settlement on either the Moon or Mars, at least for the foreseeable future (say 400 years). We *could* do it, but why? What are you going to get up there that you don't have here? What are you going to do there?

The Moon has nothing for us, save the potential for automated astronomical observatories. The far side would be great for radio astronomy, away from Earth radio interference. Mars has nothing for us either, and is only marginally less hostile than the Moon. Actually it is hostile in different ways. If you had the capability of interstellar travel and were searching for planets or moons to visit or inhabit, you certainly wouldn't consider the Moon and you'd only quickly glance at Mars. They'd both be unacceptable.

I've heard people claim the Moon and Mars are potentially springboards to the stars. I disagree. Going to the Moon or Mars is a matter of technology we do not have (re: we cannot do it today) but could develop with will and money. Going to the stars requires science we do not have and may never have. It's something we can and should pursue but at the moment the stars are beyond our reach.

Don't be so pessimistic.

I think commercial entrepreneurship will provide the "springboards", if the government stays out of the way.

Entrepeuneurs are presently working to bring down the cost of launching payloads into space (remember the recent X-prize competition?)

I can't give you the reference right now, but I recently saw an article in the L.A. times that there are entrepeneurs presently working on the idea of orbiting space hotels. I don't know what their timeframe is, but I would have to assume that they have technical experts on board who are cognizant of issues such as the radiation hazard and have some idea of an approach to solving that problem, so that semi-permanent staff could work there. And, the development of new technology always has applications not forseen initially, and brings things that were once considered forever out of reach closer to feasibility.

Technical progress is incremental, but the increments add up like compound interest. I fully expect mankind to reach Mars and beyond eventually, and may find uses for the Moon, asteroids (I've heard "asteroid mining" mentioned), and Mars that presently don't seem feasible.

I only wish I could have sufficient lifespan to see it all happen.

MBM

[MBM]

The idea of a new, man-made island nation (committed to libertarian principles) was actually proposed some years ago...

In recent years, one idea under consideration (due to limited land availabiltiy) for expanding the Los Angeles airport (LAX), which is located close to the shore, has been to extend it out into the ocean via floating platforms. I don't know whether its still under consideration, has been found to be unfeasible, or has been rejected as too costly. But assuming that it were to be found feasible and were done, I wonder how much of a leap from that it would be to the "man-made, island nation" idea.

MBM

[reason.on]

The idea of a new, man-made island nation (committed to libertarian principles) was actually proposed some years ago...

In recent years, one idea under consideration (due to limited land availabiltiy) for expanding the Los Angeles airport (LAX), which is located close to the shore, has been to extend it out into the ocean via floating platforms. I don't know whether its still under consideration, has been found to be unfeasible, or has been rejected as too costly. But assuming that it were to be found feasible and were done, I wonder how much of a leap from that it would be to the "man-made, island nation" idea.

...Not much I would guess, but seems to me the "nation" aspect would really be the hard part! Afterall, the "man-made, island" bit has been done already, and with great success.

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/kansai/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport

RCR