In Issac Asimov’s “Lecture on Humanity”, given in 1973, he makes many predictions about the 21st century. He says, among other things, we’ll need population control, a shift in our view of education, a change in food production, and we’ll have to realize “we’re a world without war” (10).

As a young, intelligent member of the 21st century, what do you think of Asimov’s predictions? Have any of them come true? If they haven’t, should we work toward making any of them a reality? Why or why not?

What other elements of Asimov’s lecture appeal to you? What do you make of his humor? Of his anecdotes? Explain what we can learn from his pointed sarcasm and from some of the stories he shares with us.

And, finally, how does this lecture reflect qualities of synoptic philosophy and critical analysis? Give a specific example.

We’re all excitedly awaiting your response to these questions. Make sure you’ve posted your blog by midnight on Tuesday, September 22nd. Also, it would behoove you to reexamine your classmates’ responses to the previous post. Some of them are without commentary; others recently posted.

I disagree with Asimov. I believe that he is looking at the world in a very idealistic way. Although everything he says is very intelligent, convincing, and impressive, his ideas are just about about as plausible as a Utopian society. Solving the worlds problems by simply changing our lives is simply not possible without serious action from a person in power. The government represents us and politics is simply a grown-up-game of staying in power. No government leader is going to sacrifice his or her political career for something they deem unimportant. America, other countries, and even human beings ourselves will always deal with more pressing matters first. Even though he does warn us of the dangers of the future, nothing will be done until trouble is banging at our back door. Also his predictions don't sound realistic. We must face the fact that as long as there is desire, lust, and greed the world will never be without war and violence.

I did think Asimov was very funny and appealed to the people. He was easy to relate to and very charismatic. He is definitely a very good speaker.


Asimov used synoptic philosophy by gathering evidence for his ideas from a variety of sources in science and literature. He used critical analysis by using his ideas to draw conclusions and to connect information from different sources.

Meaning-Making Machines

I agree with Kristol.that if the community believes itself to be meaningless and unimportant that the society will fail. Human beings live lives guided by emotion. Everyone wants a purpose in their life and something to work for. In a society where people believe that they have no purpose and that their life is meaningless will simply drag itself down into the ground. Adults would have no reason to get up in the morning to go to work and children wouldn’t have any desire to go to college or to make something of their lives if they think that it doesn’t count for anything. A society that believes that their lives are meaningless is a society doomed to failure. Everyone has their own role and responsibilities that make them a critical part to the functionality of a community.

More times than not it is what people believe about themselves, rather than what others believe of them, that makes the difference. When people are confident in their abilities and their ideas it can create a placebo effect that will govern every one of their actions. Even somebody deemed unintelligent by society can become the next president of the United States (haha) if he or she believes in himself. The mind is very possible and can make or break people. Despair will surely lead to destruction whereas confidence will lead to prosperity.