This book has grown; not as a sequel; but from the same roots. It embodies my decision to be more confrontational – and my beliefs of human worth, and worth of creativity and independent thought.
In some ways; this book gives graphical life to the documentary evidence set down in “Tompkins County and Tammany Hall”; but it also is more open to solution and love than a recounting of the past, even an impassioned one, can be.
To those who say; “How dare you claim that we are doing evil” – I reply: “How dare you do what you are doing; and claim otherwise.”
“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca”: another Satirical – Teaching – Thinking – Investigative – Activity – Game – Puzzle – Poem – Essay – Troublesome – Inspiring – Non-Conforming – Ranting – Embarrassing – Inexcusable – book.
If someone were to ask you to do something; if there were even the smallest chance of it injuring your child – you would say; “No, I won’t gamble with the life of my child.” But when technologies inherently risk all life on earth – you are willing to take that small chance; for a small benefit.
If words like “Extinction,” and “Apocalypse” are written too big for anything but videogames and movies: you need to step back a bit.
We now have the power to do incalculable things — and we have authorities who are eager to use that power.
Government isn’t impersonal; it’s personal. It’s a matter of life and death. . . January 15, 2022.
“Chernobyl wasn’t an accident: It was a safety test.” Leaving aside other interpretations: If the reactions of authorities to the Chernobyl disaster is a test of our future safety – How safe are we? • Let’s look at the “fallout” — in spite of the willful disregard, and deliberate subordination of safety; to monetary, political, and personal agendas – both before and after the “incident”: nuclear proponents insist on labeling it an “accident” – implying that on one is to blame. • The very fact that such a thing can happen; shows that it can happen again — unless you can change human nature. • Some scientists now believe they should contemplate the possible risks from advancing a technology: “wherein slight permutations of initial conditions can lead to unforeseen and profoundly negative downstream effects, for which the technologist and the new technology's proponents must be held accountable.” • In their worst-case scenario: all life on earth may be extinguished; but someone will be held accountable afterward? — Is that the best that science logic can do?