"To call last night's Hand-Eye Curiousity Club event fun and inspirational would be a profound understatement. To see everything from crowdsourced solutions for people with ALS to some literally bangin' audiovisual displays over beer and wine was a pleasure. Great people, good times. Thanks Glen!"

"Kobi, the first time the title is mentioned in the review is a hotlink to Amazon. I've also seen it in brick and mortar bookstores like Barnes and Noble."

"Ha! I'm surprised it took this long to get a comment. That's absolutely priceless. Truly inadvertent on my part rather than, um, tongue in cheek. I'm not the sort to make everything that's longer than it's wide into a phallus, but also not to subscribe to redacting the English language to turn history into herstory. Honestly if you parse it for every detail, there's all kinds of stuff like "comparable" ... maybe because words are built to fail when judged through a social lens rather than a scientific one. Men and women are just different, not better, not worse, no not even "comparable," but different, and we literally can't survive without each other. We're a species, not two warring tribes (although evolutionary psychology might say we're a little bit of both). For any reader curious about gender and perceptual differences from a scientific perspective, this came out around the time of the review. Check it out: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/brainandbeauty.html And that little article is downright boring compared to most reading on the subject. Although the science of evolutionary psychology and developmental neuroscience are completely at odds with any notion of political correctness, they do offer a lot of explanatory power. I'd recommend: Nancy Ectoff's "Survival of the Prettiest," Geoffrey Miller's "The Mating Mind" and nearly anything by Helen Fisher for accessible overviews. Harvard anthropologist Irven Devore called men "a vast breeding experiment run by women," while Geoffrey Miller describes sexual selection as "a never ending arms race of romantic skepticism and excess." Somewhere between those two extremes may be the truth. Whatever it is I enjoy it a lot. Exploring the fundamental neurological differences between men and women is far more interesting to me than comparing outputs, but since the book adopts a "gendered" lens, it seemed appropriate to address it that way, even though it's not my voice. As for the graphic design work, the human mind is a robust enough tool that even though there are massive differences in the way that the mind works between genders, we've evolved enough general intelligence as a species that the question of whether a man or a woman completed a given task is almost absurd. It's just work, and it's work done well. I'm realizing that while I've written a review answering the question posed by the book through a gendered lens, the above paragraph is probably what I should have written in the first place. The last two sentences were probably more true and less sexist than my entire review. The subtext of the book was about women achieving parity in design. I shouldn't have engaged in that debate at all. Now parity in the workplace ... that's worth fighting for. Thanks for calling me out, and thanks for bringing a little levity to a weighty topic."

"In an era where John Stewart's satire is among the most trusted sources of news, I think it's appropriate that the South Park guys, Matt and Trey, get the last word. Their latest episode #1303 "Margaritaville" gets the same point across (and with humor too!). Check it out: http://www.southparkstudios.com/"

"Don't know how I missed this article, since I posted to another in the same series: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884768,00.html Or this: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884776,00.html Goleman's quote "We once had the luxury to ignore our impacts ... not anymore" is pretty much identical to my sentiments in the first article."

"Another good take on the same pickle, this time from a labor perspective: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884749,00.html It's always nice to read thoughtful comments, and since the article did get, as I assume plinkypie was alluding, a little long, I'm happy to flesh out and answer contentions in the talkback. I think it's also important to note that a plurality of opinions are the lifeblood of democracy so I'm excited to hear consent and dissent alike. J (and for that matter, Tony's) comments are completely accurate. My missive may have been a little too pointed because I don't think designers are solely responsible at all, so if it came across that way, please accept my apologies. I think that we as a group are actually more aware than most, but that it can be frustrating that we don't have the power to change things. It's a collective action problem, and that means that we were all responsible (although maybe Tony and John less than most). Unfortunately, for a designer, refusing to manufacture a silly product just isn't a tenable solution. The problem is systemic. A single designer choosing to hold a sit-in won't gain much traction at all. We can be a voice talking to upper management, but so long as the people don't want to buy it, we ain't gonna make it. So rather than change the system, we can educate ourselves, educate others and realize that while we can't always make the products we desire, we certainly can buy only the products we need. Clement always writes knowledgeable comments, and my outlook is only slightly different from his. Just as he does, I believe in the free market and I'm distrustful of government intervention. The major difference that I can find is that I'm also distrustful of business intervention in matters of government. Economically the buzzwords for me where the free markets routinely fail in resource allocation are: the problem of the commons and prospect theory (one economic theory that explains why the markets sometimes aren't rational: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory), although we don't really need a theory since we're living it. Government should address the problem of the commons, the collective action problem and the free rider problem -- but it does so rarely. I just want people to understand that individual human beings can't act fast enough to make course corrections on errors that society has already made. Instead we need to pause, agree that a course of action is beneficial, legislate it, and then let companies and self-interest fight to make the best decisions within a limited framework. The Simon-Ehrlich wager Clement alludes to is a classic parable w/r/t resource stability for commodity prices. Simon (the libertarian) won the bet against Ehrlich (the environmentalist) because the metals they chose dropped in price between 1980 and 1990. Generally commodity prices have fallen because competition drives prices down while globalization creates provides new geology to explore. Simon refused to take a second bet later, although several similar bets are on the table now. What we have here is two forces driving trends in opposite directions: human ingenuity drives prices down through alternatives and finite resources create scarcity and drive prices up. Predicting when two exponential trends will intersect is pretty tough in my opinion. Honestly, I think we have a shot at missing the bullet even if we do nothing; but while money seems reasonable, it's just not something I'm willing to bet my future on. Where I get confused is that if the economy is so good at working within a set of constraints (like when we fished Sperm whales to the point of extinction before we suddenly found alternatives to sperm oil for everything from cosmetics to candles), why do the libertarians feel as though the economy will suddenly fail to innovate if an artificial constraint is introduced? I understand that everything from petroleum to coal is an energy source and that energy will drive innovation, but the problem is that we don't know when the inflection point for airborne carbon is (just like we didn't understand the inflection point for houses, except that the environment is even more complicated and confusing to predict). So if we can see it coming, and we know that economic corrections are rarely timely, it seems to me like counting on a timely economic correction for environmental damage is the free rider problem again (or that other classic human foible, overconfidence). I understand that designers can't fix these issues alone. I just hope we can do our part to fix them personally. I'm happy to respond to further criticism or be criticized. The one thing I can't do is get drawn into the nitty-gritty of whether or when environmental trouble will begin to occur. Many people smarter than me are doing it already. In all things there is uncertainty and I don't know how immediate a problem it is either. I may be off by decades or centuries (and I hope I am!), because the longer it takes the better our technology will be to address it. That said, the scientific consensus is clear (and no, lucklucky, looking out your window is not a sufficient statistical sample). Pick up a copy of Science or Nature (both serious peer reviewed journals) and I will make a wager that you'll find some clear evidence for warming or melting or extinction in one of the two in any given month."

"Someone asked about the acronym PBR: While I assumed that it was part of the hipster lexicon, perhaps I'm already showing my age. It stands for Pabst Blue Ribbon, and it's a beer, best served very cold, that starving artists, bike messengers and wannabees gathered around inexplicably in the early millennium precisely because the company wasn't advertising toward them or courting them at all (indeed, it's breweries had been shut down for financial reasons in the late 1990s)."

"I received some feedback from no-less than CERN themselves, which is any fanboy's dream, so a few clarifications are in order. In my original, I wrote bosun instead of boson, the former being nautical shorthand for boatswain, and I come from a naval family, so I apologize for the hasty typing. I'm embarrassed and this oversight has been corrected. I also realized that my syntax and structure linked the dangers that CERN might pose to the discovery of the Higg's boson, quite accidentally. The Higgs is the "god particle" (not my term ... I'm an agnostic) and it's something I hope the LHC does find. It is not dangerous, since as soon as we find it, it will likely disappear. But the mechanism by which we hunt for it may generate tiny black holes, which SHOULD decay into Hawking radiation. My commentary on the potential destruction of the universe was meant to reference that assumption. I've seen a few scientists discussing the LHC mention that the black holes might not fade away as quickly as anticipated, but no one thinks it's likely, and CERN rightly objects to any such characterization. So please do not mistake my commentary as advancing any doomsday views. Scientists are meant to probe the unknown, and I applaud them for it. But one can't rule out any possibility with regard to the unknown because it hasn't happened yet. I would rate the likelihood of catastrophe as on par with a maritime vessel falling off of the edge of the earth when it reached the borders of cartography labeled as "Here Be Dragons" in the pre-Magellan era. Which is to say, not very likely at all. But I still don't think you can't prove a negative. Perhaps, then, in a world where scientific fact and fiction are often confused or mistaken, it was not appropriate for me to begin with hyperbole about a project that far eclipses my limited understanding. So let me state clearly again: I'm a physics idiot. Don't listen to me on the matter. Really. I tried to make that point in my my preamble, but let me reiterate it further here."

"Fascinating article by Thomas Friedman in the Times linking the current recession with the concept of an environmental Ponzi scheme rather than Bernie Madoff's. As this new recession emerges, I easily returned to thinking about it in terms of housing starts and bad mortgages rather than synthesizing it with my very own passionate thoughts from a year prior. Friedman takes that inductive leap. Quality talkback there as well. http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html"

"It's truly amazing that the concept of carbon trading can elicit a "yawn" in talkback. When I wrote this a scant two months ago, most people had barely heard the term. Between Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens, environmental thought has made a lot of progress in public discourse recently. I don't think the concept warrants such quick dismissal, but I'm happy that awareness has progressed that fast. I also hope that I made it pretty clear (and indeed argued) that capitalism can't solve these problems � it's a job for democratic government. I agree with all of Cas's comments (though I remain puzzled as to why the involvement of women in the community holds more value than any other constituency). I'm just trying to articulate that capitalism (with strong constraints) can do a good job of allocating resources to the problem. Further, the same concept of cap and trade can be applied not to only carbon, but also land, chemical pollution and water, which are all quite worth of protection. Carbon just seems to be the most pressing now, though I'm certain that we'll have to deal with the others in time. The big argument, though, is that simple tax systems can effectively do the work of multiple laws, without requiring regulations for each project. This connects with LuckyLucky's comments. I think my use of zero-sum transactions needs to be clarified. I'm not a Luddite; I even talk about the "Singularity." Clearly technology's role in the future of mankind is almost inconceivably important. Lucky's right that we wouldn't have gotten here without our past efforts. Again, Robert Wright's book explains this very well. When I talked about zero-sum, I wasn't speaking of happiness or individual health (the latter has improved vastly in Western nations). I was talking about our planet on a holistic basis -- viewing economic consequences as part of an ecosystem. Clearly love and learning are not zero-sum. My desire is that consumption to attain those goals can be done in a more balanced manner. Hopefully Lucky will be one of those entrepreneurial minds racing to, as he puts it, make sure that economic advancements continue to outpace resource consumption."

"Thanks to you all for the largely positive feedback. While there was some criticism, I'd far rather focus on the future than react to ad hominem arguments. After thinking and reflecting on the economics of sustainability, I inflicted the following aphorism on one hapless questioner: When the commons seemed infinite, they could be ignored by all. Now that we know they are finite, they can be ignored by none. And that pretty much sums it up from an economic perspective. Sustainable economic theory itself is an outlier. Anyone who includes it in their cost calculus is bound to make irrational choices relative to those who don't, or vice versa to far worse effect. It means that until we accurately price the commons, no one can make wise decisions about the costs of anything, which undermines the power of Adam Smith's invisible hand. Though I'm tempted to get into more economic detail to defend my apolitical critique from ideological assault, I'll close with the simplest non-economic argument I know. You don't keep your car exhaust running by your bedside table. Debating how long we can keep this up is missing the entire point. Every one of us knows deep down that real sustainability is a good idea. It's just that we're worried that the person next to us would rather wait another couple of years before they start paying for it. That's called an iterated prisoner's dilemma, and it's starting to look like we only get to play a few more rounds 'till we run out of chips. The good news is that while in a single game, mutual failure is virtually guaranteed, over multiple rounds you get to know the other players and can develop mutual trust. Indeed, some biologists think that sort of repeated interaction is the very foundation of morality, and the origin of the golden rule: "treat others as you'd like to be treated." Such reciprocal altruism need not be limited to individual interactions. It can work between nations as well, as it has before in limiting nuclear arms proliferation. Our current crisis is no less dangerous. Many nations in the world have already begun to play their hands in a gesture of good faith. Now it's our turn."

"Good catch. Correcting it now."