Now regarding the "new end" that I mentioned above... I just finished reading Michael Crichton's book, 'State of Fear.' It is quite a good book, filled with a mix of storying telling and established facts. I think that's why I like Crichton's work. He combines actual points in his work, which makes his books more not less enjoyable.
State of Fear discusses many issues concerning social enfatuation with environmentalism. The story follows a few people who are basically pawns in a game played by envioronmental activists trying to create more catastrophes to draw attention to their cause and others (from a definite social minority) trying to protect those who would be harmed by such unnatural "natural" disasters. Somewhere in the middle the pawns discover the intricacies of the issues that are presented in society as plain facts.
Crichton weaves hard science with the arguments he presents in the book, by both sides of the issue. It comes out even more clearly in the 'Author's Message' section at the end of the book; he wants people to check out the information on their own, and come to their own conclusions. That, I proffer, is the best way to win an argument, and a fantastic way to present a book.
The difficult thing about learning so much about things that typically fall beneath the social radar is that I feel I'm becoming more and more of a minority. Now, this is not some egotystical opinion that sets me above the rest, but simply a distinction - just as a doctor or pilot or movie editor or any other specialized profession develops a sort of knowledge that generally falls unstimulated in common conversation. (It wouldn't suit a movie editor very well to watch a movie with his or her friends and comment about the effects that were used to make the unreal appear real; it'd ruin the experience for everyone else, so he or she simply has to repress the knowledge, or at least the articulation of that knowledge.) That's how I feel the more I read, the more I work in the research community, the more I maintain an undefinied path in life. It's annoying, it's enjoyable, it's costly, and it's rewarding.
In fact, the more I think about it (and this thought came us only as I was writing this), Michael Crichton, now dead and unable to appreciate the utility I draw from reading his works, stands as a fairly stark example of a man in the same vein to which I was just reflecting. From his days as med student, to his decision to go to hollywood instead of the opperating room, to his affinity for the uncommon, unliked and opposed take on social issues, he was his own man, to the very end. So perhaps the value of such a life choice comes not explicitly but intrinsically through the course of exposure to one's ideas. Just as I gained from Crichton's work without his knowledge (somehow I don't think the %1.75 I paid at the used bookstore will trickle back to him in any way), the purpose he had in writing it may continue through the perspective I recieved and have the potential to further promote. Yet another example of the value of the cliched phrase "pay it forward," or the "favor bank" that is referred to by Tom Palmer at the Cato Institute.
